IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.29753 of 2011
Navin Kumar Sharma
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Anr.
-----------
2/ 03/11/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned APP for the State.
Petitioner has challenged the order dated
23.11.2007 passed by Sri D. S. Srivastava the then Judicial
Magistrate, Gaya in Rampur P.S. Case No. 59 of 2004, G.R.
No.1142 of 2004 whereby and whereunder petitioner, on
account of his absence, been declared as a permanent
absconder and further necessary instruction has been directed
to follow.
From Annexure-4, it is evident that petitioner had
come up before this Court vide Cr.Misc. No. 17711/2010
seeking an anticipatory bail which was disposed of vide order
dated 24.06.2010 in the following manner:-
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
Petitioner is an accused in a case for the
offences under Sections 441, 323 and 506 of the
I.P.C. He is on Police Bail. All the offence are
bailable. So, anticipatory bail petition is not
maintainable. As he is on Police Bail, he is directed to
continue on the same in connection with Rampur P.S.
Case No. 59 of 2004 pending in the court of J.M.,
Gaya. ”
2
In the background of the direction of this Court
passed on 24.06.2010 whereby petitioner has been directed to
continue with the police bail, now there is no question of
apprehension to the petitioner for getting himself
apprehended and remanded in case he appears before the
learned lower court. Furthermore, so far as the status of
record is concerned, petitioner after his appearance will pray
before the court accordingly, and learned lower court will
pass appropriate order thereupon.
In the aforesaid background, the instant petition is
disposed of.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)
perwez