IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21852 of 2011 1. Dilip Yadav, S/O-Bhelu Yadav 2. Munna Yadav, S/O-Biaju Yadav Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 03 13.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioners are named in the first information report and informant claimed herself to be an eye-witness of the alleged occurrence. She has stated in her Ferdbeyan that when she reached near the place of occurrence, she saw that petitioners and one co-accused Huro Yadav were assaulting her husband with bricks and stones. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that except the informant, none of the prosecution witness has claimed himself to be an eye-witness of the alleged occurrence. It is further contended by him that petitioners have been implicated in this case on account of land dispute and, as a matter of fact, petitioner no. 2 had purchased a piece of land from one Rajendra Mandal and petitioner no. 1 was witness on the aforesaid sale-deed. The husband of the informant wanted to grab the aforesaid land and that is the reason of false implication of the petitioners in the above stated case. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, let the petitioners be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the 2 satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui in connection with Khaira P.S. Case No. 17 of 2011. SHAHZAD ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)