IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16042 of 2011 1. RAJKISHORE PASWAN. 2. MITHILESH PASWAN. 3. PERBHAT KUMAR. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 23.06.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State. Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a complaint case in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 364, 201 and 120(B)of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged against the petitioners that the complainant's son Pinku Kumar went to company of the petitioners and did not return when the present case was lodged. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant himself admitted in para 4 of the complaint that there was land dispute between the parties. The daughter of the informant in para 5 of the complaint has admitted that victim went alone to Dehli. It is further submitted that that 2 there is nothing on record to suggest that actually the victim went to the petitioners' company. It is also submitted that the others have been granted bail in the matter. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad, in connection with Tr. No. 2634 of 2010 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1005 of 2009, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Safik ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)