IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11312 of 2009 1. RAJ NANDAN RAM 2. LAXMI RAM 3. ASHOK RAM 4. MAMATA DEVI …….. Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 17.4.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Petitioner no.3 is claimed to be a juvenile of 12 years, so he has a special privilege under the care and protection enshrined under the Juvenile Justice Act but the forum is different. He is advised to get assessed his age by the court where the case is pending and then pray for relief from Juvenile Justice Board. With such observation, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. As far as rest is concerned, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the quarrel took place for taking bath between the families who are Gotiya . Specific allegation is leveled against Laxmi Ram about causing assault by means of handle of hand pipe though on head but the injury is found simple. There is no allegation against the petitioners which can justify their refusal of anticipatory bail. I agree with the submission. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest or surrender within one month from today in Sitamarhi P.S.Case No.455 of 2008, the above named - 2 - petitioner nos.1,2 and 4 shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi, subject to the condition as laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. (Mandhata Singh,J.) AI