IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15833 of 2010 1. NILESH YADAV SON OF ARVIND YADAV 2. MITHILESH YADAV SON OF RAJU YADAV @ RAJENDRA YADAV 3. MANOHAR YADAV SON OF LATE RAJ KISHOR YADAV, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE LUXMIPUR GIRDHAR, P.S. RUPOULI ( Akharpur) DISTRICT PURNIA --- PETITIONERS. Versus STATE OF BIHAR—OPP. PARTY. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Arun Pd. Ambastha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Dinesh Singh, A. P. P. ---- 3/ 30-06-2010 Heard the parties. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case instituted for offences under section 341, 323, 307, 504/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under section 3(1) (iv) of SC/ST ( P.O.A.) Act. According to the prosecution case the accused persons are alleged to have cultivated certain lands, which were allotted to the informant by issuing certain red-cards under the provision of Bihar Land Reforms ( Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land ) Act, 1961. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that as a matter of fact prior to lodging of the present F.I.R. vide Annexure-1, one Nawal Kishore Singh, who happens to be the family member of the petitioners, had moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6090 of 2009. By order dated 14.05.2009 while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition it was directed that the land holders shall not 2 be dispossessed from the land in question till disposal of the Revision Case No. 7 of 2008. In that view of the matter it is claimed that petitioners were having their possession over the land in question and allegation of dispossession of the informant from the land in question is absolutely false and wrong. It is also submitted that in view of dispute of bonafide possession of the land in question the provisions under section 3 (1) (iv) of the SC/ST ( P.O.A. ) Act are not applicable in the present case and, therefore, the present petition under section 438 Cr. P.C. is maintainable. It is also submitted that even according to the prosecution case offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted against the petitioners. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest or surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today, let the above named petitioners be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Purnia in connection with Rupouli ( Akbarpur) P.S. Case No. 73 of 2009, subject to conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. and subject to further conditions that : (A) one of the bailors must be government servant or close family members of the 3 petitioners who will file an affidavit in the court below showing his/her relationship with the petitioners, (B) if the petitioners are found involved in same and similar nature of cases in future, then in that case the informant/ prosecution shall be at liberty to file a petition for cancellation of the bail of the petitioners, and if such a petition is filed, the court below would be obliged to dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. BTiwary ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J)