IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8708 of 2010 DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH @ DHARMENDRA SINGH Versus The STATE OF BIHAR ------ 2/ 15.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner’s status may be better than the informant which has not been distinguished by the act, though in the incident parties are from the same village. Trivial matter was there for the differences. A Bolero was standing under the tree from which petitioner was intending to cut its branches and that only was pressed. In that continuation, it is said that abuse was in name of the caste which was followed by snatching of cash. According to the learned counsel, snatching of the cash is disbelieved. If rest of the allegation was not serious, one can easily be taken into consideration while deciding petitioner’s regular bail otherwise there is allegation in name of caste. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, prayer of the petitioner is rejected. However, he is directed to pray for regular bail before the Court below which shall be considered on its own merit on the same day without being prejudiced to the refusal order. Let the order be communicated through F.A.X. at the cost of the petitioner in connection with Taraiya P.S. Case No. 115 of 2009 in the Court of C.J.M., Saran (Chapra). shail (Mandhata Singh, J.)