IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20831 of 2009 PRAMOD YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.21774 of 2009 1. YOGI @ YOGENDAR YADAV 2. JHABBAN @ JHABO YADAV 3. BUDHAN YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 29.06.2009 Heard both sides. Both these cases arise out of same occurrence giving rise to Belhar P.S. case no. 178 of 2008 registered under sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code. As per the allegation in the F.I.R., a dispute had arisen for irrigation of the land between the parties. Allegation is that several accused persons named in the F.I.R. involved in marpit causing death of the husband of the informant. There is allegation that co-accuseds Yogi Yadav, Jhabban Yadav, Chano Yadav and Budhan Yadav along with one Ramesh Yadav assaulted the deceased with fists and spade and as a result whereof, he died at the spot. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in Cr. Misc. no. 20831 of 2009, referring to F.I.R., submits that so far the petitioner is concerned, his name has been interluded at the bottom as one of the persons who forbade the co-villagers from coming to the place of occurrence and that he had also objected in the irrigation of the plot/field. It is contended that he is in 2 custody since 28.1.2009. Having regard to said circumstance, this court directs that the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Banka in connection with Belhar P.S. case no. 178 of 2008 (Sessions Case no. 410 of 2009). So far the petitioners of cr. Misc. No. 21774 of 2009 is concerned, it appears that there is allegation of assault against them besides few other accuseds in the F.I.R.. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the post mortem report does not support the prosecution case. It is contended that the occurrence had taken place owing to dispute over irrigation of land between the parties. It is contended that they are in custody since 16.12.2008 Learned Sessions Judge in the order has observed that the inquest report prepared by the police soon after the occurrence does support the allegation. Having regard to the allegation and the materials found in support whereof, this court rejects the application for grant of bail. However, if the trial of the case is not taken up within ten (10) months from the date of receipt of the order, the petitioners shall have liberty to renew their prayer. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )