IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.930 of 2011 1. DAROGA GADDI, SON OF LATE SUGREEV GADDI. 2. MOHAN GADDI. 3. SOHAN GADDI. 4. BIRENDRA GADDI. 5. YOGENDRA GADDI. ALL FOUR ARE SONS OF LORIK GADDI. 6. MAHMOOD GADDI, SON OF KANHAIYA GADDI. 7. KANHAIYA GADDI, SON OF LATE SUKDAR GADDI. 8. NOORHODA GADDI, SON OF LALAN GADDI. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-SINGHACHHAPUR, P.S. BETTIAH (MUFFASSIL), DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN…………………………………PETITIONERS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR………………….OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For the State : Mr. U.S.P. Singh, A.P.P. ----------- 2. 12.1.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 380, 452 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is no specific allegation in the complaint case against the petitioner nos.1, 3, 7 and 8. So far as the petitioner nos.2 and 6 are concerned, they are alleged to have pointed a 2 gun. The petitioner no.4 is alleged to have set the hut on fire whereas petitioner no.5 is alleged to have removed the ornaments amounting to Rs.10,000/-. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case on account of a long standing land dispute. In fact, the petitioners had been gifted the land which is adjacent to the land of the complainant and thereafter in the year 2007. Prior to that, one of the petitioners, i.e., petitioner no.6, namely, Mahmood Gaddi, had filed a complaint case against several accused persons including the complainant of this case, namely, Nazir Gaddi. It is further submitted that though the allegation of setting the hut on fire has been made in the complaint but the same could not be established prima facie during the course of inquiry and, thus, cognizance has not been taken for the offences punishable under relevant provisions. Learned counsel relies upon the order dated 21.6.2010, whereby cognizance has only been taken under Sections 147, 148, 380, 452 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further stated that no cognizance has been taken under any of the provisions of the Arms Act also. Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case, let the petitioners, namely, (1) Daroga Gaddi, (2) 3 Mohan Gaddi, (3) Sohan Gaddi, (4) Birendra Gaddi, (5) Yogendra Gaddi, (6) Mahmood Gaddi, (7) Kanhaiya Gaddi and (8) Noorhoda Gaddi, in the event of their arrest or surrender by them within 30 days from today, be enlarged on bail on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Ravindra Singh, J.M. Ist Class, Bettiah, West Champaran, in connection with Tr. No.328 of 2010 (arising out of Complaint Case No.972 of 2009), subject to the condition laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. P.S./Sanjay-II ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)