IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4515 of 2009 1. DILIP CHAUDHARY S/O MAHESH CHAUDHARY 2. SRAWAN KUMAR S/O RAMBRIKSH PRASAD ( BOTH ARE R/O VILL. VISHUNPUR, P.S. NALANDA DIST. NALANDA) 3. GAURAV KUMAR S/O DINESH KUMAR R/O VILL- DATTU BIGHA, P.S. EKANGARSARAI. DIST. NALANDA. --- PETITIONERS Versus STATE OF BIHAR --- OPP. PARTY. ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. N.K.Agarwal, Sr. Advocate. For the State: Mr. C.Jawahar, APP. 02. 01.05.2009 Heard both sides. Three petitioners have approached this court for grant of anticipatory bail in a case instituted under Section 307 of the Penal Code and Sections 3(i) (iii)(viii)(ix)(x) and 2(11) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities )Act. As per allegation in the F.I.R., while the informant was fishing, the petitioners herein assaulted him by slaps, fists and torn his cloths. It is further alleged that pistol with live cartridge was forcibly kept in his possession and thereafter he was handed over to the police with an allegation that he was found in possession of the fire arm. Police instituted two cases. The first case is the case lodged under diverse Sections of the Arms Act by the present petitioner against the informant and another injured of the case. The second case is the case lodged by the present informant with the allegations noted above. The police upon conclusion of investigation, found the case lodged by the petitioner no.1 to be totally false, and as such, different Sections of the S.C./S.T.( Prevention of Atrocities ) Act have 2 been added. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was improper on the part of the Investigating Authorities in not arresting the informant of this case, once the F.I.R. was recorded against the informant and that shows the oblique motive. Referring to annexure-3, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the injuries sustained by the informant and another victim have been found to be simple and superficial in nature. This court, having perused the allegations and after going through the materials brought in support thereof including the impugned order, is not satisfied that a good case for anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, the application seeking anticipatory bail stands rejected. However, if the petitioners surrender in the court below and apply for regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit uninfluenced by the present order. Sym/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)