IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10921 of 2010 ANIL KUMAR & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 02.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a complaint case in which cognizance was taken under Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner no. 1 is the proprietor of the dealership of the company whereas, petitioner no. 2 is the Mechanic. It is alleged by the complainant that the complainant purchased the tractor from the dealership of petitioner no. 1 which has some manufacturing defect. The complaint was also filed before the consumer forum by the complainant. The consumer forum came to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to establish that there was any manufacturing defect in the tractor. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that it was the petitioners who persuaded him to purchase the tractor. Moreover, it is further contended that the complainant is going to challenge the order of consumer forum before the appellate 2 authority. Considering the fact that no manufacturing defect prima facie, has been established before the consumer forum, let the petitioners, namely, (1) Anil Kumar (2) Sanjoy Mistry in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of 12 weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Smt. R. Kumari, J.M. 1st class, Gaya in connection with Complaint Case No. 437 of 2009, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Anand Kr. ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)