IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8617 of 2010 MRITUNJAY KUMAR, son of Naresh Prasad, resident of village- Naula, P. S. Bhagwanpur, District- Begusarai…. Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 30.06.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Earlier the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner for an offence u/s 461, 379/441 I.P.C. by a reasoned order dated 18.4.2009 in Cr. Misc. No. 52991 of 2008 was rejected by holding that on the basis of allegations that had been made against him, he at least did not deserve anticipatory bail. Learned Counsel while pressing for anticipatory bail of the petitioner frankly conceded that though there was no fresh material after rejection of the prayer of the petitioner by this Court but the same materials could be reconsidered by this Court. In this context he would place reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ravindra Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2010) Apex Criminal Report 94. In the opinion of this Court after a conclusive finding on merit as with regard to the nature of allegation made against the petitioner showing his direct complicity 2 as recorded in the order of Sessions Judge dated 27.6.2008 rejecting prayer for anticipatory bail there would be no scope to reconsider such prayer of the petitioner by reviewing its earlier order. If such practice of successive anticipatory bail in the same case is encouraged this Court would be flooded only with bail applications which has already exceeded the figure of more than 75,000 cases in a year. The reliance placed by the learned counsel on the case of Ravindra Saxena (supra) is also wholly misplaced and at least the said judgment cannot be treated as fresh material for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Apex Court in the case of Ravindra Saxena (supra) in fact has itself made it clear that only if earlier prayer for anticipatory bail of a petitioner was rejected without considering the merit of the case of the concerned petitioner that could be reconsidered by the High Court. This infact would also become clear from the peculiar facts of that case which for sake of clarity is quoted hereinbelow:- "Being unsuccessful before the Sessions Judge, the appellant moved an application for anticipatory bail before the High Court in the earlier case, which was dismissed by the High 3 Court, as well on 13.8.2007. the appellant also sought quashing of the F.I.R. in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Rajasthan. This was also rejected by the High Court. The appellant again moved application for anticipatory bail which was rejected by the High Court on 24.3.2008. Therefore, the appellant approached this Court by way of petition for special leave to appeal, which was disposed of on 12.2.2009 with the following order. "This special leave petition is filed against an order of the High Court dismissing the second bail application of the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. On the prayer of Mr. S.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to apply for third bail application before the High Court. If such an application for bail is moved the concerned Court shall decide it on the same day." In view of the above, the appellant moved the third application for anticipatory bail. This has again been dismissed by the High Court with the following observations: "In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot said to have improved with the filing of the challan against him when prima facie case has been found against 4 the accused petitioner." We are of the considered opinion that the approach adopted by the High Court is wholly erroneous. The application for anticipatory bail has been rejected without considering the case of the appellant solely on the ground that the challan has now been presented." As noted above the Apex Court has infact not laid down law in the said judgment that even if a prayer of anticipatory bail has been rejected on merit by the High Court that has to be reviewed and even on such grounds which were infact available at the time of rejection of earlier application of anticipatory bail. Moreover the petitioner having chequered past, full of criminal antecedent in fact has been happily absconding for last two and half years from the date of institution of the case and even after the rejection of his prayer for anticipatory bail by this Court on 18.4.2009 he has not surrendered and therefore in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail on this ground itself. With the aforementioned observation, this application is dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)