IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14319 of 2009 1. AMIT AGRAWAL 2. Mukesh Kumar @ Kallu Versus 1. The STATE OF BIHAR 2. Prashant Kumar @ Pintu Kumar ----------- 2/ 29.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the act of the petitioners along with their counsel done in the Court was taken to reject petitioners earlier prayer save and except rejection of the anticipatory bail no initiative was taken for lodging any case. It is said that petitioners surrendered in Court below, later surrender-cum- bail petition was taken away by their lawyer and petitioners also came out from the custody, but now the main case in which petitioners were to surrender or arrest is compromised. The act which was done is committed in the Court, either by the petitioners or by their lawyer both equally liable. Some liberty can be given on the point that the parties have compromised. So, the petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court where the case is pending and pray for regular bail, which shall be decided on its merit without taking into consideration of this rejection order. With the above observation, the application is disposed of. shail (Mandhata Singh, J.)