Judgment 1. Heard Sri Rana Pratap Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Dasrath Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Bihar. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Chanan P.S. Case No. 23 of 2006 registered under sections 387, 307 and 120B of the Penal Code and sections 3.4(A) (B), 5 & 6 of the Explosive Substances Act. 3. The instant case has been instituted upon the written report of the Sub Inspector Rabindra Kumar Singh, Officer-in-charge of Chanan P.S. on 11.1.2006. The prosecution case in short is that at 5.30 A.M. on the same day when the informant along with police force was trav elling in connection with usual raid he found one blanket, Muffler lying on the road near village Jankidih Beldaria, on further search he found blood stains and pieces of human body. He also found sulphur and other materials generally used for preparing Bomb including some explosive substances kept in plastic bags and Tin box. On enquiry, the informant learnt that in the night there was very loud explosion on account of which people had got very much terrified. The people who had gathered at the scene of occurrence could not identify the dead body nor they were willing to tell their names, however, they stated that road widening work were going on and miscreants were trying to obstruct the construction of the work. The informant further found hole caused by the explosion at the distance of 65 feet from the place where road widening work was going on. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an Ex-M.L.A. since 1995 having leaniage with R.J.D. He further submitted he has been implicated in this case at the instance of the Superintendent of Police. The supervision was done on 11.1.2006 in which one Santosh Kumar has referred to an incident which had taken place later and as such this supervision note is ante dated and not worthy of credence. It is further submitted that he (the petitioner) does not hold any licence to take contract nor participate in tender. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also complained the matter in the Legislative Council that he is being falsely implicated in this case on account of political rivalry the police. It is further submitted that he (the petitioner) does not hold any licence to take contract nor participate in tender. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also complained the matter in the Legislative Council that he is being falsely implicated in this case on account of political rivalry the police. He also submits that the case he been investigated by one T.N. Singh, the Sub-Inspector posted in the area. It appears from the case diary that the instant case was investigated by another investigating officer who recorded the statement of one Arjun Bind in paragraph-17 of the case diary and Pratap Kumar vide paragraph-24 of the case diary. Learned counsel draws my attention to annexures 5 and 5/1 which are the affidavits sworn by Arjun Bind and Pratap Kumar in which they have stated that they did not make any such statement before the police on 3.8.2006. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the miscreants, the vested interests and the muscle men of the area fear to lose their ground in account of widening of road under the Prime Minister Golden quadrangular project and they are creating hindrance in widening of road by creating all sorts of terror as well as by making threats for payment of extortion. 6. It appears from perusal of the records and the case diary that the vested interests are creating hindrance in the widening of road by threatening the contractors by resorting to firing and exploding bombs as well as demand of extortion. 7. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to allow the petitioner to the privilege of anticipatory bail which is refused with direction to the petitioner to surrender and pray for regular bail which would be considered and disposed of by the court below on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.