IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36057 of 2009 MAHENDRA SINGH & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 05.01.2010 Heard Smt. Namrata Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dashrath Mehta, learned APP for the state. Petitioner no. 3 Amresh Singh, it is contended, has been arrested and has been remanded to custody. His prayer for anticipatory bail, as such, has become infructuous. As regards other eight petitioners, they bear general allegation of vandalizing the house of the informant and also of taking away properties kept therein. Previous enmity on account of land dispute is also admitted in the FIR and the learned Sessions Judge’s order indicates that the injuries were reported to be simple by the doctor. As regards allegation under sections 376/511 IPC, the very allegation does not make out a case under that provision. It could, at best, be a case under section 354 of the IPC. As regards other offences, most of them are bailable except under section 380 of the Code and that being not specific, it could be one of the best cases in which a magistrate be allowed to apply his mind and pass an order on the date the petitioners appear before it with a prayer for regular bail. I believe that the learned magistrate who may be hearing the prayer for bail of the petitioners, is aware of the earlier observations of the court that individual allegations are only relevant factors while considering the prayer for bail and mere insertion of a - 2 - section or any special enactment in the IPC is never the determining factor for that. The magistrate shall keep the above principle in his mind and proceed to dispose of the prayer on the same day the accused persons appear, after considering their defence of land dispute and enmity. The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the above direction. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)