JUDGMENT Anant Bijay Singh, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the learned Addl. P.P. 2. Since both the anticipatory bail applications arose from the same FIR, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 86/2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 238/2017, the case registered under Sections 341/323/447/325/307/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The prosecution case in short is that on 10.02.2017 all the accused persons, namely, Bihari Lal Mishra @ Bihari Mishra ( in ABA No.2245/2017) and Rajesh Jha @ Rajesh Chandra Jha and Umesh Jha @ Umesh Chandra Jha (in ABA No.2224/2017) and one Ram Chandra Jha armed with Lathi, Danda and Rod abused and assaulted the informant. The accused person,namely, Umesh Jha @ Umesh Chandra Jha assaulted the informant''s husband by means of butt of rifle on the head which caused injury to him. The accused-Rajesh Jha @ Rajesh Chandra Jha assaulted the informant''s husband by means of rod and Ramchandra Jha snatched away chain. It is alleged that this occurrence took place due to land dispute. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner in ABA No. 2245 of 2017 has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case because of land dispute between the parties, which is a civil dispute and hence, no offence under Section 307 has been made out against the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is no specific allegation regarding assault attributed against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly submitted that the land dispute is between the informant and the two accused persons, namely, Rajesh Jha @ Rajesh Chandra Jha and Umesh Jha @ Umesh Chandra Jha (petitioner in ABA No.2224/2017) as the disputed land has been purchased in the name of aforesaid two accused persons. Hence, the petitioner deserves anticipatory bail. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners in ABA NO. 2224 of 2017 has submitted that the father of the petitioners, namely, Ramchandra Jha has given a written complaint before the Office Incharge of Deoghar Town Police Station on 21.12.2016 alleging therein that the husband of the informant-Lalit Mishra had demanded ransom (rangdari) from him in respect of the aforesaid disputed land where the incident took place. Hence, petitioners deserves anticipatory bail. 7. Hence, petitioners deserves anticipatory bail. 7. Learned APP has submitted that he has received the case diary and filed counter affidavit. From perusal of para-14 of the case diary it appears that the I.O has seized blood stain soil and also a tractor being registration No. BR46A-9905 and trailor No. BR46A-9906 and prepared separate seizure list. In para-39 of the case diary the injury report of Lalit Mishra, who is husband of the informant is mentioned, which reveals that he received serious injury as follows:- i. Skull badly fractured with badly feud brain I.C ii. Frontal lobe more than left he was operated as emergency case and is still in I.C.U. Receiving life saving treatment iii. Eye is badly injured require removal of eye ball and he is in eye blind condition. 8. The injury report certificate has been issued by daughter Zakir Hussain, Vivekanand Hospital Pvt. Ltd, Durgapur, West Bengal. The doctor has opined that the injuries are serious in nature. From perusal of the case diary and the injury report of the injured-Lalit Mishra husband of the informant, it appears that there is direct and specific allegation against all the accused persons. It further appears that although there was land dispute between the parties but due to the aforesaid dispute the incident took place, caused serious injuries to the injured which attracts section 307 of the IPC. 9. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case and also considering the serious injuries caused to the husband of the informant, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 10. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners in both the cases are hereby rejected.