IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4621 of 2010 1. DIWAKAR CHOUDHARY ,Son of Sri Kailash Choudhary, resident of Mohalla-Katihar Jute Mill Staff Quarter Deharia, P.S. Katihar Town, P.O. Katihar, District- Katihar. 2. Hari Mohan Jha, Son of Late Pitamber Jha, resident of Mohalla-Katihar Jute Mill Staff Quarter, Deharia, P.O.& P.S. Katihar Town, District-Katihar. 3. Nakul Deo Choudhary, Son of Late Palo Choudhary, resident of Mohalla-Katihar Jute Mill Staff Quarter, Deharia, P.O.& P.S. Katihar Town, District-Katihar. ---------------- Petitioners. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 05-02-2010 Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to correct the provision of Section 384 instead of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code in the first paragraph of the application. Heard Mr.Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. Petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with Katihar Town P.S. Case No.66 of 2009 registered under Sections 147,323,379,384 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code have approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. While pressing the petition, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are employees of - 2 - Katihar Jute Mill and they were residing within the premises of the Jute Mill and one of the persons, namely, Sanjay Kumar Kesriwal after demolishing some old construction was trying to construct boundary wall illegally and unauthorizedly. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred Annexure-2 to the application, which was a report of the Commissioner, Purnea Division, wherein the facts regarding illegal construction at the instance of Sanjay Kumar Kesriwal have been mentioned. Referring this Annexure, learned counsel for the petitioners further pointed out that falsity of the prosecution case is evident from its bare perusal. He specifically referred a few circumstances mentioned in the F.I.R. to demonstrate it as a false case. He firstly referred that in the F.I.R. it was specifically mentioned that one of the accused, namely, Bishundeo Choudhary with a view to kill the informant gave a Farsa blow but any how he saved himself and accordingly no injury was caused to the informant. Subsequently, he referred to the line of the F.I.R., in which it was alleged that another accused, namely, Nakul Choudhary gave a sword blow on one of the labourers of the informant, but he too - 3 - saved himself. From the F.I.R. he also pointed out that one another accused, namely, Hari Mohan Jha with a view to kill one Niraj gave a Bhala blow , but he was also saved. While referring to the F.I.R. learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the accused persons were variously armed and allegation against them is that they also tried to kill the informant and his men, but no injury was noticed on the person either of the informant or his men. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed and submitted that all these matters can be looked into at the stage of trial and not at the stage of pressing the petition for anticipatory bail. I am also in agreement with the views of the learned counsel for the State that specific allegations disclosed in the F.I.R. and materials can be looked into at the appropriate stage. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as indicated above, I am of the view that it is a fit case in which Court should exercise jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly ,I allow the present petition and direct the petitioners to be released on anticipatory bail. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, - 4 - let petitioners above named be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within four weeks from today on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in connection with Katihar Town P.S. Case No.66 of 2009 subject to the conditions as laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J)