IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4887 of 2010 KRISHNANDAN DUBEY,son of Chandeshwar Dubey, resident of village-Soti Bheriyahi,P.S.- Kanti,District-Muzaffarpur. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02/ 09-04-2010 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Bishweshwar Ram, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Muzaffarpur Sadar P.S.Case No.200/2004 dated 08-09-2004, registered under Section 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, offence under Section 411 of the Penal Code was also added. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is a member of Home-guard and when the Tata Sumo vehicle met an accident, in which the informant and other persons were travelling, then this petitioner and few other persons tried to help them and took them to his own Sasural. Their luggage was carried to that place. Therefore, for subsequent allegation of disappearance of their luggage, petitioner may not be held responsible. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the conduct of the petitioner was not above board. Injured persons were taken by the petitioner to his own Sasural and from there their belongings were stolen by the accused persons. 2 Be that as it may, in view of the nature of the allegation, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Petitioner must surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today and, if so advised, seek regular bail. If such a petition is filed, the same may be considered and disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order. While disposing of the prayer for bail, the court below may also take into consideration that the petitioner is a member of Home-guard and recovery is not from his house. AH/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)