Prashant Kumar, J. - (1.) BOTH the anticipatory bail applications arose from the same, thus are heard together and disposed of by this order.
(2.) HEARD Sri Jaiprakash for the Petitioners and Ms. M. Palit , learned Additional P.P. for the State. Investigating Officer is present in court in compliance of order dated 18.4.2011. On query, after going through the case diary, Investigating Officer was not able to produce any evidence to show that the rice seized from the tempo of Petitioner Manoj Sao @ Manoj Sahu loaded from fair price shop of Petitioner Deoki Ram. It appears that Investigating Officer sent a report to C.J.M., Chatra stating that investigation reveals that the occurrence is true but he has not been able to show the basis on which he gave that report. Till now Investigating Officer is not able to establish that the rice seized in this case was allotted to fair price of Petitioner Deoki Ram. I.O. has also not made any enquiry or investigation on the claim of Bimal Sao, who filed an application for release of rice being its owner. Thus, I find that Investigating Officer is not performing his duty properly.
(3.) SINCE , there is nothing in the case diary as well as in the FIR to establish that the rice in question was sold in black marketing from fair price shop of Petitioner Deoki Ram, I allow these anticipatory bail applications and direct the Petitioners to surrender in the court below by 29.04.2011 and in that even the court below is directed to enlarge both Petitioners of aforesaid anticipatory bail applications, 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, Chatra in connection with Tandwa P.S. Case No. 3 of 2011 (G.R. No. 28 of 2011), subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure;