IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.6507 of 2008 NITYA NAND YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR - - - - 4. 8.9.2008 Heard. The case is under Section 385/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. The police learnt that the petitioner had exploded bombs and fired shots in order to extracting ransom and on that it had reached the place of occurrence. The case diary fully supports the primary allegation. Besides, the case diary has supported that the petitioner was requiring the contractor who was constructing an irrigation canal to pay ransom and the refusal or delay, had led to the commission of the offences. The petitioner bears a long criminal antecedent of having indulged, prior to the present incident, in similar offences. The petition is dismissed. If the Chief Engineer of the Irrigation Department(Canal) submits a report about the completion of the canal, the court below, 2 i.e., the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad, shall release the petitioner on bail on his furnishing a bond to his own satisfaction in Arwal P.S.Case No. 90 of 2006. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)