IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.890 of 2011 RABODH KUMAR RAI Son of late Dhanik Rai, resident of village Rasalpur, Police Station Patori, District Samastipur … … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR… .. OPPOSITE PARTY For the Petitioner: Mr. Kanhaiya Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. U.S.P.Singh, APP ----------- 2 13.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for offences punishable under sections 302, 324, 307, 326 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 25(1-b)A, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and section 3(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. As per the allegation, during dance in a Barat some altercation took place between the parties and co- accused Binod Rai as well as Amod Rai and Subodh Rai fired from their guns causing injuring Rajiv Paswan and Jaswant Paswan and one of them died. It is alleged that the gun shot of Amod Rai alias Subodh Rai had hit one Jaswant Paswan. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2 petitioner submitted that in fact, he is not Amod Rai or Subodh Rai, rather he is Rabodh Kumar Rai son of late Dhanik Rai and the person, who has been described as Amod Rai alias Subodh Rai, has been shown to be son of Wakil Rai, therefore, it has been submitted that the petitioner cannot be held to be participating in the occurrence, which had led to killing one person and injuring others. It is further urged that even if he is presumed to have fired injuring one, that should be taken as an accident. Learned counsel for the State submitted that that if warrant of arrest had been issued against Amod Rai son of Dhanik Rai and if the petitioner is not the aforesaid Amod Rai, there is no apprehension of arrest, so far he is concerned. However, if the petitioner and Amod Rai are one and the same and there is direct allegation upon him of resorting to firing injuring Jaswant Paswan. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation, this Court would not be inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. As a result, this application stands dismissed. SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)