IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37444 of 2009 1. SIDHESHWAR PANDIT 2. MAHASHIV KUMAR@ MAHIP KUMAR 3. MITHILESH PANDIT Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 23.11.2009 Heard both sides. Petitioners, who are three in numbers, have approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail in a case instituted under Sections 384/34 of the Penal Code. Allegation is that the complainant was summoned to a lonely place. Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 took him to that place. It appears from the complaint itself that petitioner no.1 armed with weapon was sitting from before. A host of persons was/were also standing there. Petitioner no.1 at gun point made the complainant to sign certain documents/registers whereafter he was brutally assaulted. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant is a ward member. Earlier to the filing of the present complaint he was noticed for refund of the amount handed over to him in connection with a project. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to Annexure-2. Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. This Court finds from the complaint that there is direct and specific allegation of assault as also getting some documents/registers signed at gun point against the petitioner 2 no.1. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to petitioner no.1, namely, Sidheshwar Pandit. His prayer for bail is, accordingly, rejected. So far as petitioner nos. 2 and 3, namely, Mahashiv Kumar @ Mahip Kumar and Mithilesh Pandit are concerned, having regard to the materials on record, this Court is prepared to extend them the privilege of anticipatory bail. In the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks from today, they are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the CJM Gaya in connection with Complaint case no. 553 of 2008, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr. P. C. It is made clear that one of the bailors in each case should be the own/close family member of the petitioners. Sym/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)