In the High Court of Judicature at Patna Cr. Misc. No.17274 of 2008 Bikram Chauhan Vrs. The State of Bihar **** /3/ 04.07.2008 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Present case is an example of inaction on the part of the investigating agency as well as the prosecution. In the first information report four persons were named as accused, including one Bikram Chauhan, whose parentage was not mentioned. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was never apprehended, no coercive action was taken against him though in the case diary it has been stated his property was attached. The requisition slip filed by the petitioner has been annexed in order to show that after cognizance summons were not served and no service report ever been received. The case of the petitioner is that neither any summon or warrant had been issued against him. Recently he came to know that he is named as an accused in connection with Kadwa P.S. Case No. 117 of 1993. 3. What I find that the informant has also filed a petition that this petitioner is not the person Bikram Chauhan, who is named as accused in the first information report. It has also been stated that in the village there are four Bikram Chauhans. 4. Considering the facts, the prayer for anticipatory bail 2 on behalf of the petitioner, Bikram Chauhan is allowed. He is directed to be released on anticipatory bail, in case of his surrender before the Court concerned within four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Kadwa P.S. Case No. 117 of 1993 to the satisfaction of the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Cp:3/S.A. ( Mridula Mishra, J. )