IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2661 of 2009 VINOD SAHNI, son of Ramnandan Sahni, resident of village- Muradpur, P.S. Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 8.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner prays for anticipatory bail in a case under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the first information report, which was registered against two named accused persons along with 6-7 unknown persons including the father of the petitioner. It is further submitted that he has subsequently been named by one of the witnesses before the police and thus he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that the petitioner was known to the informant and if he had participated in the said offence, then he would have been named in the first information report. It is also stated that the parties have now entered into a compromise and the same has been filed in the Court below. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, points out that the petitioner has been specifically named by one of the witnesses and moreover, he has also lodged a first information report with respect to the same occurrence stating that he had received injury and it is thus evident that the petitioner was also participant in the incident of assault etc. in which several people from the informant’s side had received serious injuries, including head injuries. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the 2 case, this Court does not consider it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and his prayer for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, rejected. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner surrenders and prays for bail in this case, his prayer for bail shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order of rejection. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)