IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5022 of 2009 PRAHLAD YADAV W i t h Cr.Misc. No.8452 of 2009 SUNIL KUMAR W i t h Cr.Misc. No.8348 of 2009 RAJO YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 21/05/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners apprehend arrest in a police case under Sections- 353, 147, 148, 149, 427, 435 and 342 of I.P.C. The allegations are that consequent to a road accident in stead of allowing the law to take its course the petitioners took the law in their own hands, blocked the road and assaulted the police and defence personnel who came to the spot. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have only been named as members of a larger mob and have been identified singularly. In the facts and circumstances, this Court is not persuaded that the present is a fit case to grant them the privilege of anticipatory. The application is rejected. Considerations for grant of anticipatory bail 2 and those for regular bail are entirely different. If an application for anticipatory bail is rejected it cannot prejudice the consideration of a regular bail application. If the petitioners surrender and seek regular bail, the court below is directed to consider their application of regular bail on the day they surrender, keeping the aforesaid observation in mind, without being prejudiced by the present order. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)