IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16629 of 2009 MITHLESH PRASAD @ MITHILESH PRASAD Versus STATE OF BIHAR With Cr.Misc. No.15268 of 2009 ARBIND PRASAD Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5/ 13-10-2009 Both these bail applications arise out of the same P.S. case and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Both the petitioners are behind the bar since their name has emerged in the F.I.R. which has been lodged in Minapur P.S. Case No. 221 of 2007. The offences under I.P.C. are under several sections like 147, 148 etc. including sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Informant’s wife was surrounded and killed when she was coming back from civil court. Even according to the allegation when co-accused Madan Prasad fired, though it is alleged that these petitioners had also supported the said crime and were present at the place of occurrence. Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that other co-accused with similar allegation have been enlarged on bail. Keeping in view the above submissions, let the - 2 - petitioners, namely, Mithlesh Prasad @ Mithilesh Prasad ( Cr. Misc. No. 16629 of 2009) and Arbind Prasad ( Cr.Misc. No. 15268 of 2009), be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in Minapur P.S. Case No. 221 of 2007. One of the sureties will be executed by a close blood relation. The petitioners are further directed to cooperate in trial by appearing on each and every date fixed. If there is any breach in the above conditions, they may be liable to forfeit the privilege of bail. The petitioners are also cautioned not to intimidate or threat any of the witness while being on bail. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J ) BTiwary/