IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31843 of 2010 NAWAL KISHORE YADAV Versus The STATE OF BIHAR ------ 2/ 09.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Informant was given facility of Indira Awas under the scheme of the year 2005-2006. According to the learned counsel, petitioner was not mukhiya at that time rather he was elected mukhiya in the month of July, 2006 and the amount for Indira Awas was only 20,000/- that was to be paid in the Account of beneficiaries. So, no question arises about its withdrawal. Later, it was realized by the complainant/informant as petitioner’s rivalry group was only instrumental for filing of the case that matter is subsidized. Only allegation for the offence under S.C./S.T. (prevention of atrocities) Act remains to consider, if really constitute makes the petition not maintainable. Twice, it is mentioned that informant/complainant went to petitioner. For the first time specifically it is given that she went to petitioner’s house and for the second time, when she met petitioner there is no mention whether inside of petitioner’s house or outside of petitioner’s house and if that is taken with compromise in between the parties public view will have no support or corroboration. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, prayer of the petitioner is allowed. In the event of arrest or surrender within one month 2 from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in connection with Mirganj P.S. Case No. 24 of 2010 above named petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Purnea subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of Cr. P.C. shail (Mandhata Singh, J.)