IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19871 of 2011 1. Sumitra Devi , wife of Shambhu Yadav 2. Shambhu Yadav, son of Buchai Yadav 3. Hareram Mandal, son of Vipate Mandal --------------- Petitioners. Versus The State Of Bihar -----Opposite Party ----------- 03. 28.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 568/2006, for the offences under Sections 376/511/147/148 /149/436 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this application with respect to petitioner no. 2 namely, Shambhu Yadav, as he has already been arrested by police. Permission is granted. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed as having become infructuous with respect to petitioner no.2. So far as petitioner nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, they are named accused in this complaint case with only allegation that at the instance of non- petitioner Ram Narayan Mandal, they provided Kerosene Oil and match box to him and handed over to said Ram Narayan Mandal who got hut of the 2 complainant under fire. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that one Ramdeo Mandal against whom main and graver offence has been attributed has already been granted the privilege by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.05.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 9186/2011, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks, let the petitioners no. 1 and 3, namely, Sumitra Devi and Hareram Mandal, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of sum of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura, in connection with Complaint Case No. 568/2006, subject to condition under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and additional condition to attend the court regularly at least for two years or till disposal of the case, whichever is earlier and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates, without any reasonable explanation, the privilege granted shall be deemed to be cancelled. Rajeev/ ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)