IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27713 of 2009 1. SUNIL MAHTO 2. RAM SINGHASAN SINGH @ RAM SINGHASAN SINGH MAHTO @ RAM SUGASAN MAHTO ----------------------------- Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 2.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that though informant’s son is killed in the incident but there is no evidence at all against the petitioners. One of the brothers of the deceased is claiming an eye witness even then that was not informed to his father. There are several litigations between the parties is an admitted fact. The deceased was taken away by Nandji Mahto on the pretext of Panchayti and in the evening when informant’s family member went in search of the deceased, these petitioners along with others were seen in suspicious condition. Next day in the morning, the dead body was recovered. The investigation is in progress. So I find it not a fit case for anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. However, both the petitioners are directed to surrender in the court of Smt. Sangita, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhojpur at Ara in Narayanpur P.S.Case No. 42 of 2008 and seek regular bail which shall be decided on its own merit without being prejudiced by this rejection order. A.I (Mandhata Singh, J.)