IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.31297 of 2009 SUDIP KUMAR SUMAN Son of Srikrit Narain Jha Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5/ 09.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 448, 436, 332, 504, 147 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant, Rajeev Sinha, Principal of M.L.T. College, Saharsa alleged that on 26.06.2009 at 10.30 A.M. while he was sitting in the office Chamber, this petitioner along with one Manish Kumar and some others came and began to abuse his office staff. Thereafter they even set fire to Chair, Table, Bench and Desk with aid of petrol. The accused persons also set fire to one of the doors of the College. The accused persons also tried to set fire to the vehicles parked out side. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to show that he does not have any criminal antecedent and in fact he had gone to the College for refund of excess amount, which was received from the Principals Office towards flood relief. This Court by order dated 08.01.2010 noticed the submissions of the petitioner that in para.10 while describing the place of occurrence, the Investigating officer has not mentioned anything regarding sign of setting fire or burning furniture etc., as such the Superintendent of Police, Saharsa as well as Investigating officer were directed to affirm separate affidavits. The Superintendent of Police, - 2 - Saharsa has filed affidavit stating therein that though the Investigating officer referred to the burnt articles, he made a mistake of not making a valid seizure list. As such, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sadar, Saharsa vide Memo no. 2284 dated 31.12.2009 directed the investigating officer to seize the partially burnt articles and prepare a proper seizure list. It has been further stated by the Superintendent of Police, Saharsa that investigating officer has been duly punished. In my view, the failure of the police officer to conduct seizure and prepare a seizure list would not come in aid of the petitioner to avail any anticipatory bail when partially burnt articles were found in the College premises. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)