IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18009 of 2010 ARJUN SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 16.6.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The defence of the petitioner in a Police case under Sections 143, 342 and 353 of the Penal Code is that he was simply a member of the mob and that certain others co-accused similarly situated have been granted anticipatory bail in Cr. Misc. Nos. 46408 of 2009 and 16480 of 2010. Counsel for the State points out that another co-accused has been denied anticipatory bail in Cr. Misc. No. 39513 of 2009. The allegations are that the petitioner as a member of the mob was blocking the highway, deflating tyres of the vehicles traveling on the highway, obstructing traffic causing serious inconvenience to those traveling. When the police came to remove the road blockade, the petitioner and others refused to do so. The defence of the petitioner is that the road had been blocked for Police atrocities. Highways are the lifeline of the nation. If the 2 petitioner chose to take the law into his own hands for what he perceived as an administrative misdemeanor, in a democracy he had a right to protest, but in a democratic manner, and not in the manner done causing inconvenience to others who has nothing to do with the episode. In Cr. Misc. No. 39513 of 2009, this Court has already noticed the factor that the accused persons took the law into their own hands not to grant anticipatory bail. This aspect of the matter did not fall for consideration in the applications where co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail simplicitor on the premise that they were members of the mob. This Court, therefore, finds it very difficult simplicitor on consistency that ground to grant them the privilege of anticipatory bail. The application is rejected. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)