IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35311 of 2009 BIRJA YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 18. 03. 2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case instituted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the F.I.R. as contained in Annexure-1, allegation of firing is not against the petitioner and that allegation is against co-accused Sujeet Yadav, who happens to be son of the petitioner. It is also submitted that only allegation in the F.I.R. against the petitioner is that he was seen fleeing away with co-accused Sujeet Kumar from the alleged place of occurrence. It is also submitted that petitioner is an old man aged about 65 years. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and has submitted that previously also an attempt was made by another son of the petitioner and in that case Dilip Yadav, son of the petitioner, has been convicted by the court. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for 2 anticipatory bail is rejected. However, if the petitioner surrenders in the court below within a period of four weeks from today and makes a prayer for regular bail, then the court below may consider the prayer for bail on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order. m.p. (Birendra Prasad Verma,J.)