IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.52344 of 2008 1. MAHESH PASWAN S/O LATE PRABHU PASWAN, R/O VILL AZAMPUR. 2. LAKHINDRA PASWAN S/O SWAROOP PASWAN, R/O VILL. CHAKAMGOLA. 3. RAMA PASWAN S/O ISWARI PASWAN, R/O VILL. AZAMPUR. 4. RAM BYAS PASWAN S/O JUGESHWAR PASWAN, R/O VILL. AZAMPUR. 5. BINOD PASWAN, S/O CHANDRADEO PASWAN, R/O VILL. CHAKAMGOLA. 6. PERMAN PASWAN S/O ISWAR PASWAN, R/O VILL. CHAKAMGOLA 7. ISHWAR PASWAN @ RAM ISWAR PASWAN S/O LATE JU- DAGI PASWAN R/O VILL. CHAKAMGOLA. ( ALL BELONGING TO P.S. DESARI ( CHANDPURA), DIST. VIASHALI. ----- PETITIONERS. Versus STATE OF BIHAR --- OPP. PARTY ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh,Advocate. For the Opp.Party: Mr. Raj Kumar Rajesh, Advocate. For the State: Mr. C.Jawahar, APP. 04. 30.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners have approached this court seeking anticipatory bail in a case instituted under Sections 302, 326/34 of the Penal Code. As per allegation in the F.I.R., which was lodged some time in 1999, these petitioners surrounded and captivated the father of the informant and thereafter he was done to death. The further allegation is that acid like substance was also sprinkled on the body of the father of the informant. It appears that during the investigation, a protest petition was filed by the 2 informant alleging therein that the Investigating Authorities were in collusion with the accused persons. Subsequently, on 19.10.99, the police submitted final form, wherein, the petitioners herein were not sent up for trial. The court below considered the protest petition and after examining the witnesses in support thereof, has taken cognizance. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners deserve anticipatory bail as the Investigating Authorities did not find accusations true against the petitioners. It is further contended that the informant of the present case is also facing a prosecution relating to the present occurrence vide Desri P.S.Case No. 23/2004. This court finds from the impugned order that the petitioners herein had earlier moved the learned Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail which was rejected on merit way back on 06.04.2005. Thereafter, they remained defiant in submitting to the jurisdiction of the case. Now, they have again sought protection of the court. Having considered the submission and after going through the records, this court does not find the present case to be a good case for extension of privilege of anticipatory bail The petitioners may surrender in the court below within a period of three weeks from today and apply for regular bail. In the event of making such an application, the court below shall consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the facts 3 emerging from the record uninfluenced by the present order and shall dispose of the said bail application on its own merit. With this observation, application seeking anticipatory bail is rejected. Sym/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)