Srimati Rita Kumari @ Rita Kumari @ Srimati Rita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.37379 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2016 Thana- DURAULI District- Siwan ====================================================== Srimati Rita Kumari @ Rita Kumari @ Srimati Rita Devi, wife of Bachcha Rai, resident of Village- Mathia, P.S. Darauli, District Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Sri Bhola Prasad, Advocate Sri Amar Nath Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Sri Yogendra Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 08-08-2018 Sri Bhola Prasad, learned counsel, assisted by Sri Amar Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner very candidly submits that if some observation is recorded, the petitioner may appear before the court below and participate in the proceedings. He submits that on merit he is not pressing the present anticipatory bail petition.

Fact remains that petitioner, who was arrayed as the sole accused in the F.I.R. on an accusation of misappropriation of public fund had firstly approached this court for grant of anticipatory bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 31850 of 2016. However, considering the materials available on record this court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail and it was dismissed on 24.08.2016. Flagrantly, even though earlier anticipatory bail

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37379 of 2018(3) dt.08-08-2018 2/2 petition was rejected, the petitioner filed another anticipatory bail petition vide Cr. Misc. No. 32069 of 2017, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.08.2017 and now, third anticipatory bail petition has been filed as if petitioner is going to oblige the court by appearing and participating in the court proceedings before the court below. Since twice earlier prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected, there is no reason to record any observation even while dismissing the present petition in favour of the petitioner save and except to direct the concerned Superintendent Of Police to examine as to under what circumstances the petitioner, even though her anticipatory bail petition was firstly rejected in the year 2016, is still at large. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Superintendent of Police asking him to take appropriate steps in the matter.

The petition stands dismissed with aforesaid observation.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) praful/- U T