JUDGMENT Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. - The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State. 3. On 03.05.2020, on the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner, the application on behalf of petitioner no. 4, Bangali Sahani, was withdrawn. 4. The petitioners no. 1 to 3 apprehend arrest in connection with Kudhani PS Case No. 59 of 2020 dated 02.02.2020, instituted under Sections 341, 342, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The allegation against the petitioners is that when the informant had gone to co-accused Ramod Sahani for seeking his wages, all the accused, including the petitioners, had assaulted him and specifically against Ramod Sahani of attempt by dabia on the head, but he saved himself by his hand due to which he sustained cut injury on finger and writ of his left hand. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for the same incident the petitioner no. 1 has also lodged Kudhani PS Case No. 60 of 2020 on the same day. It was submitted that the petitioners' side had also received injury caused by dabia blow. He submitted that there is land dispute between the parties leading to lodging of the present case. Learned counsel submitted that no injury report is on record or was produced before the police and as far as petitioners no. 2 and 3 are concerned, the allegation is general and omnibus in nature. It was submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. 7. Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that the allegation against the petitioner no. 1 is specific, which is corroborated by the injury report as cut wound has been found on the finger and wrist of the left hand of the informant, as has been alleged in the FIR. It was submitted that thereafter all the accused have jointly assaulted. However, it was not controverted that against petitioners no. 2 and 3, the allegation is general and omnibus in nature. It was also not controverted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. Learned APP submitted that it has come during investigation that the parties are agnates and that the petitioner no. 1 had got the informant employed but his wages amounting to Rs. 2 and 3, the allegation is general and omnibus in nature. It was also not controverted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. Learned APP submitted that it has come during investigation that the parties are agnates and that the petitioner no. 1 had got the informant employed but his wages amounting to Rs. 20,000/- had been taken by the petitioner no. 1 and not paid to the informant and when he had gone to ask for money, the incident occurred. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today, the petitioners no. 2 and 3, namely, Subodh Kumar and Kailash Sahani, be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, III, Muzaffarpur, in Kudhani PS Case No. 59 of 2020, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and further (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners no. 2 and 3, (ii) that the petitioners no. 2 and 3 and the bailors shall execute bond and give undertaking with regard to good behaviour of the petitioners no. 2 and 3, and (iii) that the petitioners no. 2 and 3 shall cooperate with the Court/police/prosecution. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or failure to cooperate shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds. 9. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioners no. 2 and 3, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners no. 2 and 3. 10. The prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner no. 1, namely, Ramod Sahani @ Ramod Kumar Sahani, stands rejected. 11. Interim protection given to the petitioner no. 1, Ramod Sahani @ Ramod Kumar Sahani, under order dated 03.05.2021 stands vacated. 12. The application stands disposed off in the aforementioned terms.