IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33098 of 2010 01. PARAS MAHTO @ GAINU MAHTO 02. RANDHIR MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 03. 15.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners were rejected on 23.12.2008 in Cr. Misc. No. 44840 of 2008 noticing that the final report was “true but no clue”, when on a Protect-cum-Complaint Case, cognizance was taken under Section 302 and other provisions of the of the Indian Penal Code. It was also noticed that the petitioners were alleged to be members of the mob indulging in firing. Seven to eight firearm injuries were found on the body of the deceased and head was severed from the body. The submission that two co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail subsequently on 3.12.2009 and 7.7.2010 is not considered sufficient ground to reconsider the prayer for anticipatory bail. In any event, the firearm injuries on the deceased and the head being severed from the body are aspects not noticed in the orders granting anticipatory bail. That distinguishes the consideration of the case of the petitioners. 2 However, this Court finds that one the orders dated 7.7.2010 is also based on age of 70 years, suffering from disease under treatment in the hospital. This Court is not satisfied that sufficient ground has been made out to reconsider the prayer for anticipatory bail only on the submission that the petitioners in paragraph-21 of the application are aged 70 years. If the petitioners surrender within four weeks and pray for regular bail, their applications shall be taken up for consideration on the same date. The court below shall then proceed to make its own assessment from the physical appearance of the petitioners, if they were old aged and infirm, incapable of any activity of the nature alleged and then proceed to decide the applications in accordance with law. The application is dismissed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)