IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35043 of 2010 1. Gurudeo Yadav 2. Mokil Yadav, Both sons of Late Girpati Yadav, residents of village Athaniya, P.S. Pirpainti, District Bhagalpur….Petitioners Versus The State Of Bihar………………Opposite Party ----------- 2 07.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State. The case is under Sections 341, 447, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the petitioners are said to have fired once on the informant and thereafter said to have fled away. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was dead of night and, therefore, it was not possible for the informant to identify the accused persons. He also submits that there was no repetition of firing by petitioners to show that they had any intention to ensure that the informant is dead. He submits that the fact that there was a compromise between the parties and the informant had assured that he would not contest the case, has been mentioned in paragraph 13 of the bail application. 2 Petitioners are in custody since 07.06.2010 and 19.06.2010 and have no criminal antecedents. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this application is allowed. Let petitioners, namely, Gurudeo Yadav and Mokil Yadav, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in connection with Barari P.S. Case No.05/99 with conditions as laid down in sub-section (3) of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as may be applicable and also that one of the bailors shall be a close relation of the petitioners. In case of breach of any of the conditions at any stage to the satisfaction of the concerned court below, it shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioners and take steps for their arrest. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)