IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13815 of 2010 1. SHYAMLAL SAO 2.Raju Kumar 3.Sanjiv Kumar 4.Ramswarup Sao 5.Rakesh Kumar Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR Opposite party with Cr.Misc. No.14300 of 2010 1.RAM LAL SAO @ KALLUTH SAO 2.Ram Prasad Sao 3.Ram Bachan Mahto @ Ram Vachan Mahto 4.Birendra Sao Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR Opposite Party. ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Ashwani Kr. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate For the informant : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Damodar Pd. Tiwary, A.P.P. ---------- 2 19.5.2010 Both the anticipatory bail applications have been heard together and same are being disposed of by this common order. Heard the parties including learned counsel appearing for the complainant/informant. In a criminal prosecution for offence under section 302/201 and other allied offences of the Indian penal Code, the petitioners in both the cases were named in the original FIR vide Annexure-1, giving rise to Karpi P.S. Case no. 10 of 2007 dated 28.1.2007. However, on close of investigation police submitted final report dated 305.2007 vide Annexure-3 and the petitioners were not charge sheeted. By an order dated 5.12.2007, learned - 2 - Magistrate accepted the final report and treated the protest petition as complaint. After an inquiry in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C. the aforesaid complaint petition was finally dismissed in exercise of power under section 203 Cr.P.C. and thereafter the matter was taken to revisional court and on remand, finally, cognizance has been taken under section 302 and some other allied offences of the Indian Penal Code by an order dated 25.2.2010 vide Annexure- 18. Learned counsels for the State and the complainant/informant have strongly opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioners, but they have not disputed the factual position as stated above. In the aforesaid circumstances and, particularly, in view of the fact that on close of investigation final report vide Annexure-3 was submitted and petitioners were not charge sheeted in the case and further original protest –cum- complaint petition after inquiry was also dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C. , in that view of the matter, in the event of arrest or surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today, the above named petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) each with two - 3 - sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Ravi Ranjan, J.M. Ist class, Jehanabad in connection with complaint case No. 956 of 2007, Tr. No. 2697 of 2010, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. and subject to further condition: (a) That petitioners shall make regular pairvi in the court below in the present case either by appearing themselves 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 bond of the petitioners. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J. ) M.Rahman