IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.30313 of 2009
RATNESH KUMAR DUTT VERMA SON OF SRI RAJESH KUMAR DUTT
VERMA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- E-3, SADHNAPURI, P.S.
GARDANIBAGH, DISTRICT- PATNA
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
------
FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHY, ADVOCATE
FOR THE O.P. NO. 2 : MR. S.D. SANJAY, ADVOCATE
MR. AKASH CHATURVEDI, ADVOCATE
********
12 28.03.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, the
State and the informant.
The offence alleged is under sections 498A, 406
& 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 3 & 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act.
This is second attempt for grant of anticipatory
bail. The first application was considered by this Court on
merits and upon considering the nature of allegations and
the materials declined to accede to the request of the
petitioner. The application was accordingly dismissed by
order dated 24th July, 2008 as contained in Annexure-B to
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party
no.2. Petitioner thereafter approached the Apex Court vide
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5983 of 2008 against the
dismissal of his anticipatory bail application by this Court.
The Apex Court declined to accept the prayer of the
petitioner for protection in terms of Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. The special leave petition was
accordingly dismissed. The Apex Court, however, observed
that if petitioner surrenders before the concerned Court
and moves an application for bail the same would be
disposed of on the day the petitioner appears provided an
intimation of moving the application for bail is given to the
prosecuting agency. Petitioner did not surrender in view of
the observations of the Apex Court. It is, however,
submitted that the petitioner again moved for grant of
anticipatory bail twice before the Sessions Judge
apprehending his arrest on account of issuance of warrant
of arrest. The bail application of the petitioner was second
time rejected by the Sessions Judge on 01.08.2009 as per
the Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 3613 of 2009 vide
Annexure-H to the counter affidavit. Petitioner has now
filed this second anticipatory bail application.
It is submitted that in view of the materials
collected during investigation no substantial material has
been collected against him, and as such, his application
for anticipatory bail should be allowed.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on
the other hand opposes the prayer for bail and submits
that this Court as already the occasion to consider the
application for grant of anticipatory bail on merits and
upon such consideration rejected the application as
aforesaid. The prayer of the petitioner for grant of
anticipatory bail was also rejected by the Apex Court and
the Apex Court while dismissing the application had
observed that in case petitioner surrenders in the Court
below and makes an application for bail the same shall be
considered on the same day. The petitioner did not choose
to surrender and kept continuing making his attempt to
get anticipatory bail.
It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that the second time the petitioner had moved for
anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge on account of
certain development in the case.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, on
the contrary, submits that there was no material for filing
the second anticipatory bail application.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties
and the nature of allegations as well as the fact that this
Court has earlier considering the nature of allegation and
the materials on record declined the request of the
petitioner and further that the prayer of the petitioner was
also not accepted by the Apex Court and accordingly the
S.L.P. moved by the petitioner was dismissed, I do not find
any material worth considering to allow the prayer in this
application. As such, the application is accordingly
rejected.
The interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)