IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8995 of 2010 YOGENDRA MAHTO & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR 2 17.3.2010 Heard Mr.Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shyam Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the State. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that originally the case was instituted under section 302/34 of the I.P.C., but subsequently on close of investigation police submitted charge sheet under section 304/34 of the I.P.C. against the petitioners and co-accused persons. It is also submitted that even according to the prosecution case the petitioners have been named in the present case on mere suspicion and there is no evidence to connect them with the offence in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that co- accused, Nitish Mahto and Binod Mahto, having almost similar allegation to that of the petitioners have been granted bail by order dated 9.3.2010 passed in Cri.Misc. No.7096 of 2010 by a bench of this Hon’ble Court. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but has not disputed the above position. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners no.1. Yogendra Mahto 2.Haro Mahto @ Upendra Mahto, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, Nalanda, 2 in Chandi P.S. Case No.246/09. AnilKr.Sinha (Birendra Prasad Verma,J.)