IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40887 of 2009 RAM BILAS SAH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 08.01.2010 Heard Shri Amarnath Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dashrath Mehta, APP for the State and Shri Ratan Kumar Kumar for the informant. All sections under the Penal Code which appear in the FIR are bailable except section 379 of the Code, which allegation appears against the petitioner no. 4 Most. Baleshwari Devi, who claims the land to be in her possession by holding title over it. The only reason for preferring the present anticipatory bail petition is the insertion of section 3(x) of the S.C./ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act. It may be pointed out to the learned ACJM, Dalsinghsarai that prayers for bail have always to be adjudicated upon after considering the allegations which may appear against an accused and it has nothing to do with section of an offence or any special nature of the enactment. What the court is further to consider is the defence of the accused which is in the present case is of land dispute on account of the claim of petitioner Most. Baleshwari devi over the disputed plot over which the occurrence is said to have taken place. It is too well known to be reminded that mere filing of an anticipatory bail petition may not block up the jurisdiction of a court for considering the prayer for bail. With the aforesaid observation, petitioners are directed to surrender and pray for regular bail before the court below which shall - 2 - be considered without prejudice towards the fact that the petitioners have preferred anticipatory bail petition up to this court and exclusively on the merits of the allegations in the light of the defence plea. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)