IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16755 of 2010 1. SHIVJI MAHTO 2. Ram Pratap Mahto Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 21.5.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State and for the informant who has appeared suo motu. It is not in controversy between the counsel for the parties that for the same place of occurrence at the polling booth, an F.I.R. has been lodged first registered as Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2004 in which the petitioners are not named as accused when they have subsequently been named in a complaint case filed thereafter. This Court considers the same as sufficient justification to enlarge the above named petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, sitamarhi in connection with Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 61 of 2004. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)