IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.841 of 2008 ARJUN DAS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 8.5.2008 The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Katoriya P.S.Case no.71 of 2006 which was registered against unknown persons under Sections-147,148,149,458,382,364 I.P.C., Section-27 of Arms Act and Sections-3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act and has prayed for anticipatory bail. According to the prosecution case, while the informant, Prakash Kumar Das was returning to his house with his co-villager Bhuneshwar Das around mid-night on hearing weeping of his mother, suddenly firing took place, as a result whereof both of them sustained fire-arm injuries. When other co-villagers wanted to come to his house, the culprits exploded a bomb. It is further said that when the informant reached his house, his mother informed him that some 10- 15 culprits variously armed with weapons had entered into the house and had taken away the informant’s father with intention to kill him and when she objected , they had assaulted her and had escaped towards the jungle with his father, whereas some of the accused had looted ornaments from the house. The cause of the occurrence is said to be the purchase of some land by his father through the office of Tipan Das, but there was some litigation over the land in question about which they did not know. It was presumed that it was because of the dispute over the land that the culprits have committed the offence - 2 - at the instance of Tipan Das and Moti Yadav. According to the impugned order of the Sessions Court, it appears that during the investigation the name of the accused persons including that of the petitioner have cropped up and that apart there was sufficient materials in the case diary to show their complicity in the crime and that a chargesheet had been submitted against the petitioner and two others, wherein the petitioner was shown as absconder. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact of the petitioner absconding , I am not inclined to extend the benefit of Section-438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner. His prayer for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, rejected. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) NKS/-