Shashi Bhushan Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.55175 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2016 Thana- CHAKAI District- Jamui ====================================================== Shashi Bhushan Ray, Son of Vindeshwari Ra,i resident of Village - Sono, Police Station - Sono, District - Jamui.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Pathak, Adv.

Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-11-2017 Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Pathak, learned counsel, assisted by Sri Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

This is second attempt for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner in connection with Chakai P.S. Case No.16/2016 registered for the offence under Sections 409, 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was Panchayat Secretary and considering the seriousness of accusation, earlier the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected long back on 27.07.2016 vide Cr.Misc.No.28392 of 2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Annexure-3 to the petition i.e. an order dated 18.10.2017 passed in Cr.Misc.No.49215 of 2017 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.55175 of 2017(2) dt.22-11-2017 2/3 the Court that at least two accused persons, in similar circumstances, have already been extended the privilege of anticipatory bail and, as such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner may be considered or some observation may be recorded, so that the petitioner may appear before the court below.

The Court is of the opinion that once in a case an anticipatory bail petition is rejected, the accused is required to surrender before the court below or he may approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the present case, long back on 27.07.2016, considering the fact that the petitioner was Panchayat Secretary, this Court had rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail. To the reasons best known to the local police, the petitioner is still at large and this is the reason that the petitioner has again filed a petition for grant of anticipatory bail. It's hardly matter as to whether other accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail or not but once this Court has rejected the anticipatory bail of the petitioner, certainly second anticipatory bail may not be considered.

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. While dismissing the petition, it is desirable to direct the concerned Superintendent of Police to examine as to under what

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.55175 of 2017(2) dt.22-11-2017 3/3 circumstances, the petitioner is still at large, even though his anticipatory bail petition was earlier rejected long back on 27.07.2016.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Superintendent of Police.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) nawalkrs/- U T