IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.31975 of 2011 1. Nirmal Rai @ Nirmal Kumar son of Shaligram Rai @ Shalik Rai, & 2. Manjesh Rai son of Sri Ramyad Rai Both are resident of village- Nakta Diara, P.S. Digha, District- Patna …Petitioners Versus The State Of Bihar …OP With Cr. Misc. No. 31977 of 2011 1. Alok Kumar @ Alok Kr. Singh son of Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, 2. Manoj Kumar son of Late Rajendra Rai, 3. Gopi Rai son of Sri Ramyad Rai, 4. Ravi Kumar son of Sri Ramakant Rai, 5. Tara Rai son of Late Ram Narain Rai, 6. Mahesh Rai son of Late Ambika Rai , 7. Chaitu Lal Rai son of Sri Ram Naresh Rai, 8. Ajay Rai son of Sri Ram Narain Rai, 9. Rakesh Rai @ Rakesh Kumar son of Late Rajendra Rai, 10. Ramyad Rai son of late Rajendra Rai, 11. Yashpal Kumar son of Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, 12. Mithilesh Kumar son of Sri Tara Rai, 13. Nitish Kumar son of Sri Ramyad Rai, 14. Tribhuvan Rai son of Sri Shaligram Rai, 15. Nirmal Rai @ Nirmla Kumar Rai son of Sri Arun Rai, 16. Gangadin Rai son of Late Banarash Rai, 17. Dharmendra Rai son of Sri Paras Rai, 18. Ram Kumar Rai son of Sri Ram Narain Rai, & 19. Sheo Kumar Rai son of Late Naresh Rai, All are resident of village- Nakta Diara, P.S.-Digha, District- Patna …Petitioners Versus The State Of Bihar …OP ----------- 2/ 18.11.2011 Supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioners is being filed in both the applications. Let it be kept with the record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in a case instituted for the offence under section 302 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. The informant, who is the Officer-in-charge of Digha 2 P.S., does not appear to be an eye witness to the actual occurrence. He stated that on the election day on the issue of supremacy between two candidates a clash had taken place in which four persons including the deceased had been injured. In the First Information Report, the petitioners were mentioned as the accused persons, who had participated in the clash. During investigation, it transpired that two injured, namely, Mohan Rai and Mahesh Rai had given fard beyan with regard to the same occurrence, but they did not allege any specific overt act or participation of the petitioners in the occurrence. Mohan Rai specifically mentioned that it was Ram Awadhesh Singh Yadav, who fired at Dinesh Rai, the deceased, whereas, he himself was injured by Jai Nandan Rai and Shree Rai had been injured by Jai Mangal Rai. Injured Mahesh Rai also did not name the petitioners as the persons who assaulted any of the injured. Considered the aforesaid, it is ordered that in the event of surrender of the petitioners, named above, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in connection with Digha P.S. Case No.69 of 2011, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/-(five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C., and (i) That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioners, who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioners. The bailors will undertake to furnish information to the court about any change in the address of the petitioners, (ii) That the 3 affidavit shall clearly state that the petitioners are not an accused in any other case and, if they are, they shall not be released on bail and further the petitioners shall undertake to be represented on the first date after cognizance if the investigation in the case is still pending and in case they fail to do so, their bail bond will be liable to be cancelled (iii) That the bailors shall also state on affidavit that they will inform the court concerned if the petitioners are implicated in any other case of similar nature after their release in the present case and thereafter the court below will be at liberty to initiate the proceeding for cancellation of bail on the ground of misuse, (iv) That the petitioners will give an undertaking that they will receive the police papers on the given date and be present on date fixed for charge and if they fail to do so on two given dates and delay the trial in any manner, their bail will be liable to be cancelled for reasons of misuse and (v) That the petitioners will be well represented on each date and if they fail to do so on two consecutive dates, their bail will be liable to be cancelled. JA/- (Anjana Prakash,J.)