IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23789 of 2010 1. MAHENDRA RAM, S/o Chunchun Ram. 2. Deenanath Sah, S/o Late Shambhu Sah. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03. 30.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners seek bail in a case instituted for the offences under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioners are not named in the First Information Report but subsequently the sole eye- witness i.e. wife of the deceased belatedly named the petitioner No. 2 as having been seen running away from the place of occurrence and the complicity of the petitioner No. 1 was disclosed on account of some earlier land dispute. It has further been submitted that the petitioner No. 2 happens to be the own nephew of the deceased and there is active dispute between the parties and the possibility of false implication can not be ruled out. Considering the same, let the petitioners, above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand) each with two 2 sureties of the like amount each or any other surety as fixed by the Court to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Supaul in connection with S.Tr. No. 121 of 2010 arising out of Kunauli P.S. Case No. 03 of 2010 subject to the following conditions:- (i) That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioners who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioners. The bailor will also undertake to inform the Court if there is any change in the address of the petitioners. (ii) That the petitioners will be well represented on each date and if they fail to do so on two consecutive dates, their bail will be liable to be cancelled. In case there is any complaint against the petitioners of tampering with the evidence immediate steps shall be taken to initiate a proceeding for cancellation of misuse of privilege of bail. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)