IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.41928 of 2011 Satyendra Kumar Singh @ Satyendra Yadav Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- 2. 14.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in Ara Mawada P.S.Case No. 245 of 2011 registered u/s 384 and 385/34 IPC. According to the FIR, it has been alleged that earlier there was an order of status quo but later on this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 1321 of 2011 passed order in favour of the informant. The contention of the petitioner is that he is filling up the pond for residential purpose as per the desire of the original land-holder. As he had gone to the place to inspect the pond when, Satyendra, Birendra and Yamuna had reached there and asked for a ransom of Rs.50 lacs by way of Rangdari for starting work and only thereafter the informant will be allowed him to start the work, otherwise they will not allow the vehicle to go at the place of work. Later on the father of petitioner also came there. It appears from the FIR that earlier the matter was before the S.D.O., Ara and he has passed the order stating 2 the fact that the land appertaining to Khata No. 355 Plot No.17 is a public road which has been standing in the name of Municipality and no one has the jurisdiction to obstruct the movement of public. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant has tried to grab the property of the State of Bihar and he had filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, Ara in this regard and made request to enquire into the matter whereupon he has handed over the matter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rural, Bhojpur, Ara also in his report dated 11th August 2011 stated that it is a land in dispute and the demand of Rangdari for Rs.50 lacs is not correct. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that earlier this person had also filed similar type of case against one Kumud Sinha, a retired teacher making similar type of allegation as against the petitioner. It has been submitted on behalf of State that on perusal of purported report it appears from the report (Annexure-2) that the Deputy Superintendent of Police though has opined that a demand of Rs.50 lacs is not correct, but in nut shell, he found that the allegation of obstruction is by and large 3 correct. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. This petition is, accordingly dismissed. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the court below within 4 weeks from to-day, the court below will consider his case on merit on the first day itself considering all the aspect of the matter raised before him, without being prejudiced by this order. Jay/ (Shivaji Pandey, J)