IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16396 of 2010 SUNIL GUPTA son of late Bhagelu Sah, Resident of village-Cheharia, P.S.-Durgawati, District Kaimur (Bhabua). Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 25.5.2010. The sole petitioner apprehending his arrest in Durgawati P.S. Case No.155 of 2009 has approached this court for grant of anticipatory bail. Short fact of the case is that the informant submitted a written report to the police disclosing therein that in the morning of 9.11.2009, while he was crossing from the house of the accused persons, he was apprehended on the allegation that he was regularly attending nature’s call at his door. He was tied with rope and thereafter he was brutally assaulted. There is specific allegation against the petitioner that he gave a blow from an axe on the head of the informant. On the basis of the written report of the informant first information report vide Durgawati P.S. Case No.155 of 2009 was registered for the offences under sections 504, 341, 342, 323, 324 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that no offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out on the basis of allegation made in the first information report. He further submits that on trivial dispute the occurrence had taken place. Accordingly, he has prayed that the petitioner may be released on anticipatory bail. Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public 2 prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he gave an axe blow on the head of the informant. The informant received three injuries and one of them is lacerated wound on occipital region of skull 2``x ¼`` muscle deep and the doctor who examined the informant has found the said injury grievous in nature. Accordingly, she has prayed that this petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the materials available on record, this court is of the opinion that in such cases this court may not extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. In the present case there is specific allegation against the petitioner regarding giving a blow from the axe which has been supported by the doctor while he had examined the informant. The doctor has found injury no.1 as grievous. It is true that other accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner but in the facts and circumstances of the present case particularly in view of specific allegation against the petitioner, this court is not inclined to extend the privilege anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. It is made clear that if the petitioner surrenders before the court below and prays for grant of regular bail, the court concerned shall pass order without being prejudiced with this order keeping in mind that this order has been passed while 3 hearing the petition for grant of anticipatory bail. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)