IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40743 of 2009 DHANANJAY KUMAR . Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 3 6.4.2010 KHAN Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case under sections 379 and 414 of the Penal Code. The name of the petitioner figured in the confessional statement of co-accused Anil Kumar Tiwari. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the supervising officer found that the entire occurrence is collusive in order to take undue benefit from the Insurance company. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and he does not have any criminal antecedent and the tractor was not recovered from his possession. The submission of the petitioner may be a good ground for regular bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. However, if the petitioner surrenders and pray for regular bail, the same would be disposed of on its own merits. (S.P.Singh,J)