IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37035 of 2010 1. KAILESH MAHATO S/O JANAK MAHATO, 2. DINESH MAHATO S/O JANAK MAHATO, 3. SHATRUGHAN MAHATO S/O NATHA MAHATO, 4. CHANDESHWAR MAHATO S/O NATHA MAHATO, 5. RAMBALI MAHATO S/O CHULHAI MAHATO, 6. RAM BRIKSHA MAHATO S/O LATE BAHADUR MAHATO, 7. LAKHAN MAHATO S/O NATHA MAHATO, ALL R/O VILLAGE-DHANGAR, P.S. PARASAUNI, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. --PETITIONERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR --OPP.PARTY 2 02.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the seven petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioners appears named accused in this case which stands covered by Supreme Court decision in the case of George Pentiah V. State of Andhra Pradesh; 2008 (12) S.C.C. 531, and it further appears that parties have settled their dispute. Accordingly, petition for compromise appears to have been filed. Considering the facts and circumstances, on the event of the informant appearing as witness supporting the factum of the compromise with his free will and without any coercion and also the informant and other injured stood as bailers the petitioners, in the event of arrest or surrender 2 within four weeks from today, are directed to be enlarged on bail on each of them furnishing bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi, in Persauni P.S. Case no. 20 of 2010, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with additional condition that the petitioners shall remain present before the court below on each and every date till disposal of the case. If the petitioners fail to remain present on two consecutive dates without any reasonable explanation the privilege granted shall be deemed to be cancelled. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) AAhmad