IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.28129 of 2011 ====================================================== Suresh Sharma @ Ratan Sharma, son of Baleshwar Sharma, resident of Village Pharvishganj, P.S. Pharvishganj, Distt. Araria. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== 2/ 19-08-2011 Heard. The petitioner has approached this Court for the third time seeking anticipatory bail in a criminal prosecution pending against him. For the first time, the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner along with two other co-accused persons was rejected by a speaking order dated 20.05.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No.7699 of 2010 (Annexure-1). Relevant portion of the order dated 20.05.2010 passed by this Court is reproduced hereinbelow: “In a criminal prosecution based on a complaint petition vide Annexure-1 the cognizance against the accused persons including the petitioners appears to have taken by the learned Magistrate only for the offences under sections 307, 498A, 323, 120 B/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also 3 / 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. From plain perusal of the complaint petition vide Annexure-1, it is apparent that the husband of the complainant was also killed by the petitioners and other co-accused persons. Death of the husband of the complainant is not in dispute. However, since the death of the husband of the complainant has taken place in the district of Araria and the present complaint petition vide Annexure-1 was filed in the district of Madhepura, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28129 of 2011 (2) dt.19-08-2011 2 therefore, on the question of jurisdiction cognizance under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has not been taken by the learned Magistrate against the petitioners and other co-accused persons, though according to the complaint petition all the three petitioners appear to be mainly responsible for the killing of the husband of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since cognizance has not been taken under section 302 of the Indian penal Code, therefore, that aspect need not be looked into by this court. It is further pointed out that as per the cognizance order, now the case stands only for the offence under section 498 A and 307 besides other minor offences under the Penal Code and since some other female co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by a bench of this Court, therefore, the petitioners may be also given similar relief. Be that as it may, since the complaint petition was filed in the year 2005 and the petitioners have approached this court after a lapse of 5 years in the year 2010 and further since the petitioners are alleged to be killers of the husband of the complainant, therefore, judicial conscience of this Court does not permit to accede to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail. It is accordingly rejected. The petitioners must surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today in connection with complaint case No. 632 of 2005, and seek regular bail, if so advised, which shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order.” Though the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected by the order dated 20.05.2010 and he was required to surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks and was obliged to seek regular bail, but instead of complying the aforesaid order and direction, he along with two other co-accused persons filed fresh application seeking anticipatory bail on almost same set of facts. Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28129 of 2011 (2) dt.19-08-2011 3 again rejected by an order dated 09.02.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No.5271 of 2011 (Annexure 2). Again a direction was issued to the petitioner to surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks and he was obliged to seek regular bail. Despite the aforesaid orders and directions dated 20.05.2010 as also 09.02.2011, petitioner has not surrendered in the court below seeking regular bail, though he is absconding since the year 2005 and has instead approached this Court for the third time seeking anticipatory bail on almost same set of facts besides few development regarding his family affairs. This Court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioner is having some problems in his family, then those problems can be highlighted before the learned Magistrate while making prayer for regular bail. In the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any good ground for enlarging the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The petitioner, having deliberately violated the orders and directions issued by this Court, does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Anjani /- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)