IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29753 of 2011 Navin Kumar Sharma Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr. ----------- 2/ 03/11/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.11.2007 passed by Sri D. S. Srivastava the then Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Rampur P.S. Case No. 59 of 2004, G.R. No.1142 of 2004 whereby and whereunder petitioner, on account of his absence, been declared as a permanent absconder and further necessary instruction has been directed to follow. From Annexure-4, it is evident that petitioner had come up before this Court vide Cr.Misc. No. 17711/2010 seeking an anticipatory bail which was disposed of vide order dated 24.06.2010 in the following manner:- “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is an accused in a case for the offences under Sections 441, 323 and 506 of the I.P.C. He is on Police Bail. All the offence are bailable. So, anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable. As he is on Police Bail, he is directed to continue on the same in connection with Rampur P.S. Case No. 59 of 2004 pending in the court of J.M., Gaya. ” 2 In the background of the direction of this Court passed on 24.06.2010 whereby petitioner has been directed to continue with the police bail, now there is no question of apprehension to the petitioner for getting himself apprehended and remanded in case he appears before the learned lower court. Furthermore, so far as the status of record is concerned, petitioner after his appearance will pray before the court accordingly, and learned lower court will pass appropriate order thereupon. In the aforesaid background, the instant petition is disposed of. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)