IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38885 of 2009 VIJAY KUMAR SINGH . Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 3/ 14/01/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The defence of the petitioner in a police case under Sections-302/34 of 120 of I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act naming his father only, is one of unfounded suspicion against the father and son both because of a tenancy dispute when considering the absence of any materials for suspicion also the father of the petitioner has already been enlarged on regular bail. Learned counsel for the State from the case diary finds it difficult to distinguish the case of the petitioner from that of his father. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner above named surrender before the court below within four weeks when he shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail upon furnishing the bail-bonds of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand) along with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in connection with Kadamkuan P.S. Case No.90/09, subject to the conditions laid down under Section-438(2) Cr.P.C. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)