IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35475 of 2010 PINTU YADAV S/o Krishn Yadav Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR Opposite Party ----------- 02/ 28.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned P.P. for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant. It would appear from perusal of the FIR and impugned order that there is land dispute between the parties and it is alleged that the petitioner along with several others accused persons went at the field of the informant and opened indiscriminate firings and in that course petitioner and his associates assaulted the informant and others and after that they snatched belongings of the informant and others. Admittedly, the case has been registered under sections 307, 379 and other minor sections of the IPC as well as 27 of the Arms Act. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no case under section 307 IPC is made out and so far section 379 IPC is concerned, the same is nothing but only super addition. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that none of the person has received fire arm injury as evident from FIR itself. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer pointing out that the petitioner carries criminal history of several cases and he is terror of the area. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the petitioner to be released on bail in connection with Mansi P.S. Case no. 129 of 2009 on furnishing bail bond of Rs 10,000-/ with two - 2 - sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Khagaria subject to the condition that the petitioner shall make his appearance before the court below on each and every date and if he fails to comply the above stated condition without any sufficient reason, the learned court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J))