JUDGMENT Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. - The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. N K Agrawal, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Saket Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Raj Kishore Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State. 3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Digha PS Case No. 152 of 2020 dated 10.03.2020, instituted under Sections 447, 341, 323, 324, 325, 354B, 379, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, in a group of 40-50 persons was singing and partying near the house of the informant and when they returned after closing his office and asked them to remove their motorcycles, they refused and indulged in a fight and then it is alleged that the petitioner attacked the informant with sharp weapon causing injury on his head. It was further alleged that the other persons attacked the informant on his left shoulder and after entering his house, misbehaved with his sister-in-law, abused his father and snatched Rs. 26,000/-, the informant was bringing after closing his office. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties are neighbours and there may have been some misunderstanding and altercation on some petty dispute, but the allegation is incorrect and blowne out of proportion. It was submitted that the injury on the person of the informant has been found to be simple caused by hard and rough object as has been noted in the order of the Sessions Judge, Patna dated 02.09.2020 in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 3806 of 2020, by which prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been rejected. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is young and that he has no other criminal antecedent. 6. Learned APP submitted that 40-50 persons, creating nuisance on the road, which is a public place and in full public view, sends a wrong message to the society and the effect is not localized between two persons, for an atmosphere of uncertainty and fear is created and further it shows that the petitioner was trying to flex his mussels in full public view which also intimidates other simple citizens and residents of the area. 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 petition stands dismissed.