IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.6407 of 2010 ARUN YADAV @ ARUN KUMAR KAUSIK Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 11.5.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the informant and the State. Enmity was in between the parties since the day of election of Grampanchayat. Petitioner along with all his brothers and others is alleged for causing assault to the deceased while he was near house of Dwarika Mahto and was to go to Police Station to inform the intention of accused persons to kill him. It appears that presence of informant and his family members is not probable rather F.I.R. in itself is clear that after getting the information they reached there only. Three of the witnesses though examined at belated stage, are said having their probability of remaining at the place of occurrence as they are Dwarika Mahto, his wife and daughter-in-law near their house only incident took place. They are clear on the point about taking place of the incident including assault caused by accused persons and in that continuation they are not stating about presence of this petitioner. If that is 2 connected with vague allegation of assault by various weapon petitioner appears entitled for anticipatory bail. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest or surrender within one month from the date of communication of this order, the 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah in Kawakole (Rupau) P.S. Case No. 108 of 2009, subject to the condition as laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. AI ( Mandhata Singh, J.)