IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50692 of 2008 1. Tapsi Dixit. 2. Paramhansh Dixit. 3. Girishdeo Dixit. All Sons of late Sakaldhari Dixit, R/o village Chamarpatti, P.S. Phulwaria, District-Gopalganj. ………Petitioners Versus The State of Bihar …….Opposite Party. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramchandra Singh, APP ------------ 05. 06.05.2009 Heard both sides. Counsel for the petitioner states that during the pendency of this application petitioner No. 3 (Girishdeo Dixit) has been arrested and as such the present application has become infructuous. Having considered the said submission, it is ordered that the application so far as petitioner No. 3 is concerned is dismissed as having become infructuous. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail in a case instituted under Sections 384, 386, 353 & 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegations as per the F.I.R. is that petitioner No. 1 who is sitting Mukhiya demanded ‘rangdari’ tax from the informant and his employees, on account of the fact that he was executing government work and using inferior quality of material in construction of road. On refusal he was threatened with dire - 2 - consequences. Ultimately petitioner No. 1 with the assistance of his brother damaged the road so constructed by the informant in order to teach him a lesson for non-payment of the amount so demanded by him. Counsel for the petitioners states that the allegation leveled is the outcome of animosity, as the petitioner had made objections to the execution of work which was sub-standard in so much so he had also filed certain applications. It is further submitted that going by allegations in the F.I.R. there is no direct allegation against petitioner No. 2. Counsel for the State submits that the case records reflect that petitioner No. 1 carries criminal antecedent. A Counter-affidavit has been filed. Referring to para 3 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that petitioner No. 1 is facing prosecution in eleven cases which are of serious/heinous nature. Counsel for the State, however is not able to show from the case diary that petitioner No. 2 carries any criminal antecedent. Having regard to the submissions and after going through materials on record including the F.I.R. and the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that no case for extension of privilege of anticipatory bail in favour of petitioner No. 1 is made out. The application on his behalf is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is - 3 - persuaded to extend petitioner No. 2, (Paramhansh Dixit) the privilege of anticipatory bail. In the event of his arrest/surrender before the court below within four weeks from today he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in connection with Fulwaria P.S. Case No. 62 of 2008, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Vikash/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)