Ash Narayan Singh @ Ash Narayan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60139 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2018 Thana- JANDAHA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Ash Narayan Singh @ Ash Narayan S/O Late Jagdhari Singh @ Jagdhari Resident Of Village- Ahirauli Dan, P.S- Tareya Sujan, Distt.- Kushinagar (U.P) ... ... Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Adesh Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 11-10-2023 The present case seems to be result of a nil advise.

2. The petitioner in the present case is seeking prearrest bail in connection with Jandaha P.S. Case No. 35 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. He has got two criminal antecedents.

3. It appears that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 79175 of 2018 which was allowed vide order dated 01.03.2019. As per the said order, the petitioner should have surrendered and submitted his bail bonds within a period of six weeks but he could not do so for the reasons best known to him.

4. It appears that once again in the year 2023, the petitioner was advised to file a fresh anticipatory bail application giving rise to ABP No. 1572 of 2023 in the court of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60139 of 2023(2) dt.11-10-2023 2/2 learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali, Hajipur. The learned court has been pleased to dismiss the anticipatory bail application after taking note of the fact that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 79175 of 2018 which was allowed vide order dated 01.03.2019 but he could not surrender and furnish his bail bonds before the learned court below and chose to file a fresh anticipatory bail petition.

5. This Court is of the considered opinion that in the circumstances, the learned court below has rightly refused to entertain the fresh anticipatory bail petition. There is already an order of this Court and in case the petitioner could not surrender and submit his bail bonds within given period, he should have applied for appropriate remedy before this Court which he has not done.

6. In the circumstances, this Court would not entertain this second anticipatory bail petition. The petitioner, if so advised, may file an appropriate application in this case for appropriate relief.

7. This anticipatory bail application stands disposed of accordingly.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rishi/- U T