Akhilesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68747 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-182 Year-2017 Thana- SANDESH District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Akhilesh Yadav Son of Shatrudhan Yadav Resident of Village-Panpura P.S. Sandesh District - Bhojpur.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 26-02-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Sandesh P.S. Case No. 182 of 2017.

3. At the very outset, learned APP invites reference to paragraphs 237 and 245 of the case diary to submit that process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has been concluded and the petitioner has been declared as absconder.

4. Having regard to the submission of the APP, the anticipatory bail petition cannot be entertained in view of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730, in para 12 whereof it has been observed as follows - "12. From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and declared as "absconder". Normally, when the accused is "absconding" and declared as a "proclaimed offender", there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68747 of 2018(4) dt.26-02-2019 2/2 execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code is not entitled the relief of anticipatory bail."

5. Similar view has been expressed in State of M.P. vs. Pradeep Kumar, (2014) 2 SCC 171.

6. The anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed as not maintainable.

BT/Chandran (Vikash Jain, J) U T