ORDER By the Court.-Petitioner is represented by learned counsel. Md. Mokhtar Khan and the opposite party-State is represented by Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, A.P.P. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Margomunda P.S. Case No. 85 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 642 of 2013 under Sections 341, 323, 353, 379, 420 and 504/34 of Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of Sri A. Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur at Deoghar. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.9.2013 at about 3.30 p.m. when the informant-Block Development Officer, Margomunda was discharging his duty in his office, the petitioner and others came to the Block Office and started to make uproar. In course of uproar, they torn official papers and threw chairs resulting in hindrance of discharging official duty. It is further case of the prosecution that one Pradip Napit caught hold of the informant's left hand and the petitioner caught hold of the informant's hair and started to pull him out of the Block office and this petitioner told let shot the informant. On complaint lodged by the Block Development Officer, an F.I.R. was registered at Margomunda police station being Margomunda P.S. Case No. 85 of 2013. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mokhtar Khan, submitted that all the offences levelled against the petitioner are bailable except the offences made under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and no case is made out under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted the petitioner went to the office of Block Development Officer for making representations for rampant corruption prevailing in the Block office of Margomunda in connection with the development works and in the implementation of the Government Scheme including social security. Indira Awas, NAREGA etc. It is further submitted that there is no specific allegation against this petitioner and that the petitioner is a para teacher and he is innocent. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that four witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and investigation is under progress and having regard to the offences alleged against the petitioner, he is not entitled to privilege of anticipatory bail. 7. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that four witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and investigation is under progress and having regard to the offences alleged against the petitioner, he is not entitled to privilege of anticipatory bail. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the occurrence was way back of 27.9.2013 and except offence made under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code, all other alleged offences are bailable in nature and no case is made out under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and by this time, substantial part of the investigation must have been completed. Considering the facts that the petitioner is a para teacher and is continuing in his work, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the Court below within a period of three weeks from today and on such surrender he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court of Sri A. Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur at Deoghar in connection with Margomunda P.S. Case No. 85 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 642 of 2013 subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2), Cr PC. Bail allowed.