IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3516 of 2010 UMESH SAO. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR. ----------- 02 29.01.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail, in a case instituted under Section 392 of the Penal Code arising out of a complaint lodged on 31.03.2009, in relation to an occurrence that had taken place on 16.03.2009. Relying on Annexures 2 and 3 (charge-sheets) filed against the complainant in relation to two other criminal case(s), it is submitted that the petitioner was a witness in both the case(s). Referring to Annexure-4, it is contended that in similar fact situation, two other co-accuseds, named in the F.I.R., along with petitioner, have since been privileged with anticipatory bail by this Court by order dated 07.01.2010. Referring to the statement made in paragraph no.11 of the bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner. Having regard to the submission that similarly placed co-accuseds, have since been privileged with anticipatory bail, this Court is also inclined to extend the same privilege to the petitioner. Let petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- ( ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount 2 each to the satisfaction of the J.M. 1st Class, Jamui in connection with Complaint case no. 336 ( C) of 2009, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. It is made clear that one of the bailors should be the own/close family member of the petitioner. Sym/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)