IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11676 of 2010 Ram Uday Rai, son of Late Shobha Kant Rai, resident of Village- Narayan Pipar, Police Station- Cheria Bariarpur, District-Begusarai. ……………………………Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar ………………………Opposite Party. with Cr.Misc. No.12000 of 2010 Bidhan Chandra Rai, son of Late Shatrughan Rai, resident Of Village- Basatpur, P.S. Hasanpur, District-Samastipur. ……..Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar ……………………….Opposite Party. For the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 11676 of 2010 :- Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, A.P.P. For the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 12000 of 2010 :- Mr. Bhupendra Kr. Singh, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, A.P.P. ----------- 3. 05. 05. 2010. Heard the parties. The petitioners in both the cases apprehend their arrest in connection with Rosera Police Station Case No. 173 of 2008 dated 25. 11. 2008, registered under Sections 302/34 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that, though petitioners are also named in the F.I.R. vide Annexure-1 as accused, but their names have been incorporated in the F.I.R. only on the basis of suspicion that there was some previous litigation between the both sides. It is further submitted that petitioner Bidhan Chandra Rai is own nephew of the informant and a partition suit is also pending between them. Petitioner Ram Uday Rai is own Samadhi of petitioner Bidhan 2 Chandra Rai. According to the F.I.R. two unknown accused persons are alleged to have killed the deceased Vikash Ranjan. Co-accused Vinod Deo and co-accused Hariom Lal @ Hariom Prasad @ Kumar Hariom are said to be conspirators for committing the crime in question by giving Supari (contract) of Rs. 3,00,000/- to a shooter namely Pinku Kumar. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, prayer for anticipatory bail of co-accused Vinod Deo and co-accused Hariom Lal @ Hariom Prasad @ Kumar Hariom has been rejected by this Court by a reasoned and speaking order dated 02. 04. 2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 31097 of 2009 and Cr. Misc. No. 32174 of 2009. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the petitioners submits that case of these petitioners are quite distinguishable from the case of aforesaid two co-accused persons, whose prayer for anticipatory bail has been rejected by this Court. It is highlighted that on close of investigation, so far these petitioners are concerned, accusation against them were found to be false and they have not been charge sheeted vide Annexure-2, though charge sheet has been submitted against other co-accused persons and investigation against co-accused Vinod Deo and co-accused Hariom Lal @ Hariom Prasad @ Kumar Hariom is still pending. Though petitioners were not charge sheeted vide Annexure-2, but the learned Magistrate by an order dated 24. 08. 2009 vide Annexure-3 has disagreed with the Police report and has taken cognizance against 3 the petitioners also besides other co-accused persons for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and other allied offences and therefore, petitioners have reasonable apprehension of their arrest. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, though opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but has not disputed the aforesaid factual position noticed above. Taking into consideration of the aforesaid facts, particularly the facts that on close of investigation, the petitioners were not sent up for trial and a partition suit is also pending between the parties and the case of the petitioners are quite distinguishable from the case of co-accused Vinod Deo and Hariom Lal @ Hariom Prasad @ Kumar Hariom, in the event of their arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from today, in the event of their arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from today, the petitioners, namely, Ram Uday Rai and Bidhan Chandra Rai, shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, in connection with Rosera Police Station Case No. 173 of 2008, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C. and subject to further conditions; (a) that one of the bailors must be Govt. servant or close family member of the petitioners, who will file an affidavit in 4 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. (c ) the petitioners shall make regular pairvi in the court below in the present case either by appearing themselves in person or through representation by their lawyer on each and every dates, and if on two consecutive dates petitioners fail to make pairvi, then the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners. m.p. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)