Judgment Chaudhary Sia Saran Sinha, J. 1. Mahanth Dhansukh Giri, whom the learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Balbhadra Prasad Singh described as the reigning mahanth of Bodh Gaya Math, Jairam Giri and Din dayal Giri, the Manager and Assistant Manager, respectively, of the said math, have come up to this Court for grant of anticipatory bail to them in bodh Gaya P. S. Case No.3, dated 8-8-1979, which involves the murder of as many as two persons namely, Ramdeo Manjhi and Pachu Manjhi and serious injury to one Janki Manjhi. The occurrence took place on 8-8-1979 at about 2.30 p. m. in Village Mastipur within Bodh Gaya police Station. One Karu Sah lodged a Fardbeyan regarding this occurrence at about 5.45 p. m. , on 8-8-1979 in spite of the Police Station being only two kilometres from the Police Station. 2. It appears that the management of the Bodh Gaya Math had made over certain lands of the Math to the persons working as labourers which they are said to have brought under their khas cultivation. These labourers along with other under the guidance of Chhatra Yuva Sangharsh Wahini had organised a mob to protest against this action of the management of the Bodh Gaya Math. The Fardbeyan lodged by Karu Sah attributted the existence of a rifle in the hands of one Rama Giri, obviously a person other than petitioner No.2 and he was said to have caused the death of the two deceased. The only allegations in the Fardbeyan against the three petitioners were that it appeared that the petitioners were behind this incident : "yeh Ghatna Karwane ke pichhe Bodh Gaya Math ke Mahanth dhansukh Giri Darwari bara Jairam Giri aur Chhota Darwari Din dayal Giri ka hanth hai. Aisa pratit hota hai," As submitted by Shri Balbhadra Prasad Singh, the post-mortem examination performed on the dead body of Ramdeo Manjhi and Pachu manjhi revealed that they did not die of gun-shot injury ; rather it indicates that their death was due to the injury resulting from the splinters of bomb blast. 3. There is a counter version also which was recorded on the statement of one Gopal Singh, presumably an employee of the Bodh Gaya Math, at 3.30 p. m on 8-8-1979. 3. There is a counter version also which was recorded on the statement of one Gopal Singh, presumably an employee of the Bodh Gaya Math, at 3.30 p. m on 8-8-1979. In this information, Gopal Singh attributed the death of one Rarnadhar, an employee of the Bodh Gaya Math, at the hands of the mob consisting of the labourers and the members of the chhatra Yuva Sangharsh Wahini in course of the incident on 8-8-1979. It further stated about the throwing of bomb by the members of the said mob. There was no explanation in the Fardbeyan lodged by Karu Sah as to how the death of Ramadhar, abovenamed, had occurred. 4. At this initial stage of the case it may not be appropriate for this court to express any opinion regarding the infirmities in the prosecution case, as pointed out by Shri Singh and it would suffice to say that some of these infirmities could not be satisfactorily explained by learned counsel for the State. 5. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 366 (Balchand Jain V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh), the submission of shri Singh was that in the facts and circumstances of this case, it was a fit case where anticipatory bail should be allowed to the petitioners. Beyond what it appeared to the informant Karu Sah as quoted above, no specific overt act has been attributed to any of these petitioners in the Fardbeyan, but in the information lodged by Janki Manjhi before the Police on 9th august, 1979, petitioner No.2 was stated to be the assailant of the two deceased above named. Two of the witnesses, as submitted by the State counsel, also stated about the presence of petitioner no.3 in the mob, armed with lathi and one of them namely, Prabhat Kumar further stated that petitioner No.3 was chasing the fleeing persons with lathi in his hand. Learned Counsel for the State could not, however, point out any material in the case diary so far to indicate even the presence of Mahanth Dhansukh giri (petitioner No.1) in the alleged mob. Thus, the case of petitioner No.1 stands on a different footing than the cases of petitioners Nos.2 and 3. 6. Learned Counsel for the State could not, however, point out any material in the case diary so far to indicate even the presence of Mahanth Dhansukh giri (petitioner No.1) in the alleged mob. Thus, the case of petitioner No.1 stands on a different footing than the cases of petitioners Nos.2 and 3. 6. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Balchand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) the power to grant anticipatory bail is somewhat extraordinary in character and should be exercised only in exceptional cases under special circumstances. The mere existence of some infirmities in the prosecution case, although they might entitled the persons accused to regular bail in appropriate cases, may not by themselves justify the exercise of the powers to grant anticipatory bail. 7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, while there appears to be justification for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner No.1 (Mahanth dhansukh Giri), it does not appear to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioners Nos.2 and 3. 8. Petitioner No.1 Mahanth Dhansukh Giri on his surrendering before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, in the abovementioned case, may be released on bail of Rs.4,000 (four thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each on the following conditions : - (i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required ; (ii) that he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer ; and (iii) that he shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. 9. The prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of petitioners nos.2 and 3, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is rejected with the observation that at the appropriate stage, they may, if so advised, apply for regular bail. 10. The application is disposed of accordingly. Appeal dismissed.