IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11591 of 2009 SMT.KALINDI DEVI Versus The STATE OF BIHAR ------ 2/ 18.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the only fault which was found committed on behalf of the petitioner is about keeping her shop closed followed by further allegation that there was no proper distribution of grain to B.P.L. card holders under Antodaya Scheme. It is further submitted that at the time of inspection, petitioner was seriously ill and she went to the Doctor. So, basing the same, there can be no justification for refusal of petitioner’s anticipator bail. I agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed. In the event of arrest or surrender within one month from today in connection with Brahampura P.S. Case No. 91 of 2003, G.R. No. 10 of 2003, above named petitioner shall 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 S.D.J.M., East Muzaffarpur subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of Cr. P.C. shail (Mandhata Singh,J.)