IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.10925 OF 2010 1. ABI JHA, S/O HARISH CHANDRA JHA 2. SHYAM JHA, S/O ABI JHA 3. JHOTAILA JHA @ RANJIT KUMAR, S/O ABI JHA ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – RAJPUT TOLA MANIARI, P.S. - MAJORGANJ, DISTRICT -SITAMARHI ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ……….. OPPOSITE PARTY WITH CR.MISC. NO.10933 OF 2010 1. ANIL KUMAR JHA @ ANIL JHA, S/O ABI JHA 2. SUNIL KUMAR @ SUNI JHA, S/O ABI JHA 3. SANTOSH SRIVASTAVA @ SANTOSH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, S/O LATE NATHUNI SRIVASTAVA ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE -RAJPUR TOLA MANIARI, P.S.- MAJORGANJ, DISTRICT – SITAMARHI …….PETITIONERS VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ………. OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State of Bihar : Mr. Ram Priyasharan Singh, A.P.P. ----------- 2 26.04.2010 Heard the parties. The petitioners in both criminal miscellaneous cases apprehend their arrest in connection with Majorganj P.S. Case No. 37 of 2008 dated 12.04.2008 registered under Sections 143, 144, 341, 323, 324, 307, 379 and 2 504 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are case and counter case from both sides with respect to same occurrence and entire occurrence had taken place on the question of harvesting of wheat crops. A Title Suit is also pending between the informant at one side and some of the accused persons at the other side, and according to him, the prosecution allegation of assault against the Petitioner No. 1, Abi Jha by ‘garasa’ upon the head of the informant has not been supported by the independent witnesses. By referring to annexure -2, it is submitted that on close of investigation, the case was found to be true only under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 504 I.P.C. and case under Section 307 I.P.C. has not been found to be true. Furthermore, Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 of Cr. Misc. no. 10925 of 2010 have not been charge sheeted, though, charge sheet has been submitted against other petitioners. 3 However, learned C.J.M. has disagreed with the Police report and has taken cognizance u/s 307 I.P.C. also besides for other offences against all the petitioners. Learned counsel for the state though opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, but has not disputed the aforesaid factual position. Be that as it may, in the event of their arrest / surrender within a period of four weeks from today in the above noted case, the above named petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Sitamarhi, subject to the conditions as laid down under sub section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Praful (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)