IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33442 of 2010 SANJAY SAH @ SANJAY KUMAR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 02. 15.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Renewing the prayer for anticipatory bail, learned counsel submits that it could not be emphasized properly on the previous occasion that the informant in his application had not mentioned that he belonged to the handicapped category and that appointment had been in fact, made before the F.I.R. was lodged. Learned counsel for the State points out that the allegations are for demand of illegal gratification to make appointment. For reasons mentioned in paragraph-6 of the impugned order of rejection noticing from the materials on record that the petitioner had not mentioned in his application form that he belonged to the handicapped category. Let the petitioner above named surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today when he shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to 2 the satisfaction of S.D.J.M./concerned Court, Pupri at Sitamarhi in connection with Pupri P.S. Case No. 94 of 2007, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)