IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2632 of 2009 1. PEER MOHAMMAD MIAN 2. RUSTAM MIAN ---- PETITIONERS. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ---- OPP. PARTY. ----------- 03 19.11.2009 Heard both sides. Petitioners, who are father and son, have approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail in a case instituted under diverse Sections of the Penal Code including Sections 307 and 379/34 of the Penal Code. Admittedly petitioner no.1, who is father, has not inflicted any injury. Allegation is that he exhorted his sons to assault the informant. Resultantly petitioner no.2, namely, Rustam Mian is said to have inflicted ‘farsha’ blow on the head of the informant. There is counter version of the present case as well. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were not sent up for trial by the police on conclusion of investigation Be that as it may, having regard to the specific allegation against petitioner no.2, this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail. The prayer for bail made on behalf of petitioner no.2, namely, Rustam Mian is, accordingly, rejected. So far as petitioner no.1, namely, Peer Mohammad 2 Mian is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks from today, petitioner no.1, is directed to be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Motihari in connection with Harsidhi P.S.Case no. 162 of 2005 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C. Sym/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)