IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.27597 of 2011
Madan Mohan Sinha
Versus
The State Of Bihar
-----------
3. 28.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for State.
Petitioner is one of the named accused in this 18 years
case and apprehends his arrest.
Submission is that earlier during investigation petitioner
was granted privilege under Section 438 Cr. P.C. by the Court of
learned Sessions Judge itself in the year 1994. Privilege was extended
from time to time. Ultimately, finding no material showing any
apprehension of being apprehended, application for anticipatory bail
was ultimately rejected being infructuous, even the petitioner
subsequent to the aforesaid order of learned Sessions Judge, was
present before the Court below but his application intimating such
affairs was only kept on record nothing more could be done. Much,
thereafter, Police submitted charge sheet and cognizance was taken as
early as in the year 2001 but at no point of time petitioner was ever
noticed. Consequently, he took no step, but he has subsequently been
declared absconder against which one Cr. Misc. No. 40243 of 2010
under Section 482 Cr. P.C. seeking quashing of order declaring him
absconder is preferred which is still pending before a bench of this
Court. The petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail which
has been refused by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground of its
being not maintainable since earlier he has availed the privilege. The
2
learned Additional Public Prosecutor also objected the prayer mainly
on the ground that earlier in pursuance of the privilege granted by the
Sessions Judge the petitioner surrendered before the Court below,
released on bail which was extended from time to time, but ultimately
disposed of.
Considering the facts and circumstances, especially
petitioner availing the privilege of bail till his prayer for anticipatory
bail before learned Sessions Judge was finally disposed of, being
infructuous finding no material to show any reason for, he may be
taken into custody. Prayer for anticipatory bail under Section 438
Cr. P.C. is not maintainable accordingly disposed of. However, in the
event of petitioner surrendering before the Court below within a
fortnight and seek regular bail, the Court below shall consider the
prayer on its own merit including the facts that earlier petitioner was
granted the privilege and the circumstances under which his prayer
was found infructuous and also whether at any point of time he was
served with any notice either personal, or through his counsel, after
order taking cognizance.
With the aforesaid observation this application stands
disposed of.
(Akhilesh Chandra, J.)
Saif/-