IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32867 of 2010 RISHIKESH KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 29.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Admittedly, petitioner is full brother of complainant and the cognizance has been taken only under Sections 323,380 and 427 of the I.P.C. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is some dispute between the above stated two brothers on the point of getting the retiral benefit of their father. Moreover, the case of theft appears to be false and there are several litigations are going on between the parties. Though the learned Sessions Judge rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner on the ground that he was declared as absconder but the impugned order itself reveals that neither any summon nor any process was ever served upon the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, this anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is ordered that petitioner, namely, Rishikesh Kumar in the event of arrest/surrender within 30 days from receipt of the order in connection with Complaint Case No.1780 C of 2005, shall be released on bail furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/0 with 2 two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M., Ist Class, Begusarai, subject to condition as well under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. PN/AKV ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)