IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.13715 of 2010 SANTOSH KUMAR MURARKA @ SANTOSH MURARKA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 11/ 21.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. I surprised that how such submission is made on behalf of the informant that F.I.R. does not mention about presence of this petitioner on spot but investigating officer finds him present on the place of occurrence. Main dispute is petitioner’s men coming on informant’s land and house who came to her through her husband brother’s wife in that also his men did not succeed. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the parties in Court giving more details leading to right, title and interest over the land and its house. At present, petitioner’s submission is that in F.I.R. informant is clearly mentioning non-presence of this petitioner on spot and claim of the parties needs adjudication by a competent Court. For crime committed, if any, and defence made, parties are not with clean hands otherwise there should be mentioned about clear identification of the disputed land by mentioning its plot number, boundary and area. So, I 2 find it not proper to refuse the anticipatory bail. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed. In the event of arrest or surrender within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in connection with Madhubani P.S. Case No. 355 of 2009, above named petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Madhubani subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of Cr. P.C. Shail ( Mandhata Singh, J.)