JUDGMENT Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. - The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Ravindra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State. 3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Wazirganj PS Case No. 162 of 2020 dated 14.04.2020, instituted under Sections 147, 148, 323, 307504, 506, 379 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with others, was armed with firearms, lathi and iron rod and had assaulted the informant and also damaged his truck and taken away cash Rs. 10,000/- and also of giving threatening of burning the vehicle. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the FIR itself, he had only put the gun on the temple of the informant but did not fire and thereafter, there is no overt act alleged against him and he has been falsely implicated due to village politics. It was submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and that no motive has been assigned in the FIR. Learned counsel submitted that out of seven persons, including the petitioner, who had prayed for anticipatory bail before the Court below, four persons were allowed and three persons, including the petitioner, were denied the privilege of anticipatory bail. It was submitted that one of the co-accused Gendo Rajbanshi @ Gendu Rajbanshi has been granted anticipatory bail by order dated 24.03.2021 in Cr. Misc. No. 33924 of 2020. 6. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner was the main person who was responsible for the incident and he had firearms with him and it is not necessary that he should have used it as he had put fear in the informant and others by brandishing the same and also putting it on the temple of the informant and most importantly, on his order, the truck was vandalized and Rs. 10,000/- cash was looted. It was submitted that co-accused Gendo Rajbanshi @ Gendu Rajbanshi has been granted anticipatory bail for the reason that though, against him, there was specific allegation of assault on the hand, the same was not corroborated in the injury report as injury near the eye has been found and, thus, the same would not have any bearing on the present case. 7. 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. 9. However, in view of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that if the petitioner appears before the Court below and prays for bail, the same shall be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the present order.