IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17133 of 2009 1. RAMCHANDRA MAHATO 2. RAJ KUMAR MAHATO 3. SURENDRA MAHATO Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02/ 19.05.2009 Heard Sri Sanjeet Deokuliar, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri Dasrath Mehta, APP for the State. The petitioners are directed to appear in the court below as per the direction of the learned Sessions Judge and pray for regular bail. It has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court that while hearing a petition for bail the section or the enactment is never a relevant fact and what is relevant is the allegations which may be appearing individually against the accused persons. The further things to consider could be the defence of the accused or any other plea like that of alibi etc. I believe that the court below is understanding the meaning of present observation and shall read the rejection order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in A.B.P. No. 65 of 2009 in which it has been specifically recorded that there was no specific allegation of theft against any of the accused persons. If that is so, then the offence could be bailable and that way also the petitioners could be required to appear for - 2 - bail in the court below. The court below shall consider the prayer of the petitioners without any prejudice. This petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Let this order be communicated to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran in connection with Motihari Muffasil P.S. Case No. 238 of 2008 through fax at the cost of the petitioners. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)