IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36372 of 2009 1. RAMESH YADAV 2. Surendra Yadav, Both sons of Hira Yadav 3. Dadan Yadav @ Dadan Singh (Yadav), son of Radha Singh Yadav, All resident of village- Dhankadha, P.S.- Sasaram (M.), District- Rohtash at Sasara …..Petitioners... Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 24.02.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. The petitioners facing prosecution for offence under Sections 147, 148, 326, 435, 436, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, as also Section 27 of the Arms Act have their defence that whatever has been stated in the First Information Report as against them by subscribing them to be the member of mob which had tried to scuttle the cases of the informant and other peasants claiming their right on rocks in question allegedly settled by Mines Department in favour of Ajay Yadav and Anil Yadav would at best amount to exercise of right of 2 private defence in relation to safeguarding the property which was allotted by the State to the lessee. It has further been submitted that the prosecution story as with regard to allegation under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act has been found to be wholly untrue and in fact has also been quashed by this Court in order dated 18.1.2010 in Cr. Misc. No. 30329 of 2009 and therefore it should rightly be inferred that entire allegation was not fit to be accepted. This court would find that it is a case of group carnage where on one part, the peasants had defended the alleged right which was subsequently parted in favour of the petitioners and lessee Anil Yadav and Ajay Yadav. It is the case of the petitioners themselves that they wanted to exercise mining of lease portion, the informant and others had tried to attack them and one person namely Ramata Singh had sustained a firearm injury. If this 3 part of the story of the petitioners is accepted, this Court will have also take into account the fact that the informant of the present case had also sustained injuries as is clearly recorded by learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. In such finding it has been also clearly recorded that the informant had also sustained firearm injury on his head though simple in nature. That would make the offence in hand a subject matter of case and counter case and thus taking into account the admitted facts it would be premature to record as to which party had exceeded its right of private defence or was an aggressor as the same would definitely require evidence at the time of trial. At this stage while considering the prayer for anticipatory bail, this Court would however not find the present case to be totally false. Such occurrence in fact gives rise to social carnage and has to be viewed seriously by all concerned. 4 That being so, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, in the event the petitioners would surrender and pray for regular bail, the court below would consider their such prayer on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)