Om Prakash Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66841 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-895 Year-2018 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== OM PRAKASH SAH Son of Late Lakhan Sah Resident of VillageGadhpura, P.s.- Gadhpura, District- Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dudheshwar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 895 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

This is the third attempt of the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail as earlier by Annexure-1 series his anticipatory bail was rejected.

The Court fails to appreciate that in such a heinous offence how come the police is sitting idle and the petitioner is roaming freely and approaching the Court at his will for seeking anticipatory bail, it appears that the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai has made a mockery of the proceedings of the Court.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66841 of 2021(3) dt.19-07-2022 2/2 The petitioner appears to be incorrigible as he is repeatedly approaching the Court despite knowing that earlier his anticipatory bail was rejected twice, the learned counsel now makes a submission that the accused in whose confessional statement the name of this petitioner transpired has been acquitted, this further strengthens the belief of the Court that the police is inefficient and that is why perhaps is not taking steps to arrest this petitioner and allowing him to move freely so that he keeps on approaching the Court at his will.

In view of the fact that petitioner's anticipatory bail was rejected twice, the Court is not persuaded to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that the accused in whose confessional statement the name of the petitioner transpired has been acquitted. His prayer for bail is thus rejected.

Let this order be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai immediately for necessary action.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Shivam/- U T