IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21271 of 2011 Onkar Yadav son of Awadh Yadav, resident of village-Jhajh, P.S.Barachatti, Dist.-Gaya Versus The State o Bihar ----------- 2. 6.7.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Barachatti P.S. Case No.124 of 2011 registered for the offence under sections 384, 385 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail in which allegation has been leveled that the petitioner and others had taken some amount from the beneficiaries for construction of Indra Niwas at the time of making payment of Rs.15,000/- as also at the time while the amount was being deposited in the account of the beneficiaries. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention towards definition of extortion as defined in section 383 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that from a bare perusal of definition of extortion it is apparent that ingredients of sections 384 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code are missing in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that in absence of ingredients of sections 384 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code, there would be no application of section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail on the ground mentioned in the first information report and in the impugned order. Taking into consideration the submissions made on 2 behalf of the parties, let the petitioner, namely, Onkar Yadav in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sub.Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati (Gaya) in connection with Barachatti P.S. Case No. 124 of 2011. Md.S. ( Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)