Ajay Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.33988 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -138 Year- 2014 Thana -BYPASS District- PATNA ====================================================== Ajay Yadav S/o Sri Lal Bahadur Yadav, R/o Village Son Varsha, P.S. Paraiya, District Gaya .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ Manu, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application for grant of anticipatory bail arises out of Bypass P.S. Case No. 138 of 2014, disclosing offence under Sections 406, 420 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Without going into the merits of the case, the several orders passed by this Court in the present matter need to be taken note of which read thus:- "19.08.2015- Call for the xerox copy of the original case diary in connection with Bypass P.S. Case No. 138 of 2014 from the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City and list this matter on receipt of the same.

Meanwhile, since the name of petitioner sprang up on the confession of coaccused, let no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner in connection with the aforementioned matter.

02.12.2015- As prayed for, put up this case after one week.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33988 of 2015 (7) dt.11-02-2016 2/2 16.12.2015- Put up this case after X-Mas holidays as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioner.

07.01.2016- No one appears to argue the case.

Let the matter be passed over for the day.

08.01.2016- Yesterday also, the case was passed over. No one appears even today.

Put up this case on Monday i.e., 11.01.2016 by way of last indulgence."

Today also a request is being made for adjournment on one ground or the other. The request is refused. It appears from the above that the petitioner has avoided disposal of this application after having obtained an interim order in his favour on 19.08.2015. Thereafter several adjournments have been sought for and granted on one ground or the other, as is evident from above.

In view of the conduct of the petitioner, this application for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. Interim order dated 19.08.2015 stands automatically vacated.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Vats/- U T