IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.381 of 2008 MD.HELAL KHAN s/o late Shafi Ahmad Khan, resident of village- Khajurar, P.S. Bhadura, District- Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR . 2. The Secretary, Department of Home , Govt. of Bihar,Patna. 3. The Director General of Police, Bihar,Patna. 4. The Superintendent of Police (Rural),Patna. 5. The Executive Magistrate. 6. The Sub-divisional Police Officer, Barh, Patna. 7. The Officer Incharge, Sri Dharmendra Singh of Bahadura P.S., Barh,Patna. 8. The Sub Inspector of Police, Sri B. Upadhyay, Bahadura P.S., Barh, District- Patna. ----------- 3 3.11.2009 Petitioner has certain land at Barh. He states that some anti social elements are regularly trying to disturb his peaceful possession. They cut away his crops. Earlier Sub-divisional Officer, Barh, had initiated a proceeding under section 107 Cr.P.C. on recommendation of police and the anti social elements were put under bond.. Notwithstanding that they cut away the crops subsequently, for which petitioner has lodged a criminal case. In the criminal case, they were apprehended and put behind the bar, still there is apprehension that if any crop is ready for harvesting, they would start creating problem. It is this apprehension that the petitioner has been forced to file this case. A counter affidavit has been filed in which there is general statement that the respondent- State is duty bound to maintain law and order. Nothing concrete has been taken to give any assurance to this Court or Security to the petitioner. It is only expected that Superintendent of Police, Patna as well as Sub-divisional Police Officer, Barh would see that situation 2 does not precipitate into a full fledged criminal situation, which should be nipped at the at the bud. In view of the threat perception , as noted above, if petitioner makes representation to the aforesaid authorities, they would take necessary action in accordance with law, which may be necessary. That is there duty. Court does not think that they would shirk in to the duty in maintaining law and order. Needless to say that in case petitioner is obstructed in cultivating or harvesting from his land and required the assistance of the respondents, the State would be obliged to give necessary assistance as by law required. With the above observation and direction, this application stands disposed of. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)