IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.6068 of 2009 DEEPAK SAH, son of Nand Lal Shah, resident Of village Bihiya, P.S.Bihiya,Dist.Bhojpur ---petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR---------------opp.party with Cr.Misc. No.8035 of 2009 NATHU RAM SHAH @ SADHU, son of Sita Ram Shah Resident of village Station Road Old Bazar, P.S.Bihian, Dist. Bhojpur--------petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR---------------opp.party ----------- 2. 15.5.2009 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners in both the cases and learned Additional P.P. for the State. The petitioners pray for anticipatory bail in Behea P.S.Case No. 224 of 2008 under Sections 353,224,225,34 of the IPC and 47F of the Excise Act. The allegation against the petitioners is that on raid of the shops of the petitioners during the course of search 40 kg. of Mahua was recovered from the shop of the petitioner Nathu Ram Shah and 1400 kg. from the godown of the petitioner Deepak Sah situated behind his shop. Thereafter it is alleged that 20-25 supporters of these accused persons created trouble and forcibly rescued the accused persons and took away the said Mahua. 2 Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that all the Sections of the IPC are bailable and recovery of Mahua itself does not constitute an offence under Section 47F of the Excise Act which mandates licence for the keeping of Mahua flower. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not consider it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Their prayer for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, rejected. However, if the petitioners surrender and pray for bail then the same should be considered without being prejudiced by the rejection of their prayer for anticipatory bail. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/