IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2002 of 2010 1.HARI LAL RISI, S/O Ramdeo Risi (Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Parora). 2.Prakash Risi, S/O Late Doman Risi 3.Janak Risi, S/O Late Punai Risi 4.Chalitar Risi, S/O Late Punai Risi 5.Kapildeo Risi, S/o lataru Risi 6.Dinesh Risi, S/o Late Sahdeo Risi 7.Bijay Risi, S/o Molan Risi 8.Ramchandra Risi, S/o Late Baleshwar Risi, 9.Ramdeo Risi, S/o Late Baldeo Risi 10.Najir Risi, S/o Late Chalitar Risi All of village Parora, P.S. K. Nagar, District Punia. 11.Kusum Lal Risi, S/o Late Dileshwar Risi, Resident of Parora Basdeva tola, P.S. K. Nagar, District-Purnia. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 23-02-2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the Informant as also counsel for the State. The plea for anticipatory bail of the petitioners for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 380 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code is pressed only on the ground that the Informant and his family members were aggressor in an incident of 18.8.2009 as would be found from the text of the complaint case filed by petitioner no.1 on 19.8.2009. Counsel for the Informant, on the other hand, would submit that petitioner no.1 being a Mukhiya, if he could not file a police case and had gone to the Court for filing a belated complaint case as with regard to the incident for which the informant had filed his F.I.R. on 19.8.2009, within 45 minutes of such occurrence the same was supposed to more authentic and plausible specially when the same has been also found to be true in 2 course of supervision by the higher police officers on 25.8.2009. In the opinion of this Court the case and counter case apart, the fact that the petitioner no. 1 despite having criminal antecedent has suppressed the same in this application wherein he was made an accused by the Headmaster of Parora Gram Panchayat alleging demand of Rangdari in relation to construction of a school building would by itself go to show that petitioner no.1 has definitely not maintained the standard of a Mukhiya. That apart, when the allegations made against all the accused persons have been found to be true in course of investigation and they too have not revealed their criminal antecedent, it cannot be held that the court below has committed any error in rejecting their prayer for anticipatory bail. That being so, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected. However in the event, the petitioners would surrender, their prayer for regular bail would be considered on its own merits without being influenced in any manner by this order. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)