IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.48186 of 2008 RAMAKANT SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 16.12.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant, who has appeared suo motu. The petitioner apprehends arrest in Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 147 of 2004 originally registered under Section 396 and 398 of the Penal Code in which cognizance has been taken under Section 395 of the Penal Code. There is an another F.I.R. being Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 151 of 2004 under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code. In the entirety of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the informant, what transpires is that the informant in Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 147 of 2004 and 151 of 2004 are own brothers. There appears to be serious differences and conflict between them and in which on 6.12.2004 son of the informant in Bajpatti P.S.Case No. 151 of 2004 died. Notwithstanding that his own son died, he preferred to lodge the case on 18.12.2004. In the meantime, on the date of occurrence itself i.e. 6.12.2004 Bajpatti P.S.Case No.147 of 2004 was lodged stating the death of the son of the informant in Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 151 of 2004. The curious aspect of the matter of the father lodging F.I.R. for the death of his own son after 12 days registered as Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 151 of 2004 is also striking. In the present Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 147 of 2004, it is the uncle of the 2 deceased naming the petitioner. In Bajpatti P.S. Case 2.No. 151 of 2004, the present informant was made an accused, sent to custody, enlarged on regular bail. In Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 147 of 2004 final form was submitted recommending proceedings under Section 182, 211 of the Penal Code against the present informant when the matter has proceeded on a protest petition. In the entirety of the matter, this Court is satisfied that both sides are trying to encash the death of family members in the fracas that has occurred between them. Considering the matter in its entirety, registration of Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 151 of 2004, 12 days later at the behest of the father of the deceased found to be true and the earlier Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 147 of 2004 lodged on the date of the occurrence found to be false, this Court is not persuaded that the present is a case of a nature fit for the privilege of anticipatory bail. The application is rejected. Any application for regular bail on behalf of the petitioner shall be considered by the court below on its own merits on consideration and discussion as aforesaid without being prejudiced by the present order. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)