JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.-Leave granted.

2. These criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgments and orders dated 19.9.2011 and 25.10.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Crl. Misc. Nos.. 28318 and 33546 of 2011, by which the High Court has enlarged the respondents Rajesh Kumar Singh @ Pappu Singh and Sanjay Kumar Singh @ Mintu Singh on anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as `Cr.P.C.')

3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that :

A. On 5.6.2011, the appellant Jai Prakash Singh lodged an FIR of Laheria Sarai Case No. 304 of 2011 under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as `I.P.C.'), alleging therein that the informant/complainant and his elder brother Shiv Prakash Singh were having a medicine shop for the last 2-3 years. On 5.6.2011 around

10.00 p.m., his brother closed the shop and proceeded towards his house on his motorcycle. He was chased by the aforesaid respondents on a motorcycle and stopped. They opened indiscriminate firing and thus, he died on the spot. In the FIR, it was also alleged that the said respondents had threatened the complainant to kill him and his brother 10-15 days ago as there had been some old dispute of accounts between the parties.

B. As per the post-mortem report, the deceased received 5 bullet injuries on his person and he died because of the same. The said respondents had applied for anticipatory bail, however, their applications stood rejected by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 11.8.2011 observing that in the investigation, a strong motive had been found against the said respondents and there were certain affidavits of eye-witnesses to the effect that the said respondents were the assailants.

C. Aggrieved, the said respondents filed Miscellaneous Criminal Petitions for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the Patna High Court. The said applications have been allowed passing the impugned orders granting them anticipatory bail on the grounds that the FIR itself made it evident that there was some previous dispute between the parties which led to a quarrel and the accused had fair antecedents. Hence, these appeals.

4. Shri Dvijendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the High Court committed grave error while granting anticipatory bail to the said respondents without considering the gravity of the offence and the manner in which the offence had been committed and without realising that the FIR had been lodged promptly within a period of two hours of the incident and both the said accused persons had been named therein. Thus, the impugned judgments and orders are liable to be set aside.

5. On the contrary, Ms. Kavita Jha and Ms. Prerna Singh, learned counsel appearing for the said respondents and the State of Bihar, have opposed the appeals contending that the High Court has imposed very serious conditions while granting the anticipatory bail. The order does not require any interference at this stage. The appeals have no merit and are liable to be dismissed.

6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

7. The provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. lay down guidelines for considering the anticipatory bail application, which read as under:

"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.-

(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail; and that court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors, namely:-

(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation;

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously