IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.52334 of 2007 SUSHIL KUMAR SON OF UMESH KUMAR SINGH, VILLAGE SOHRA, P.O. KANCHANPUR, P.S. NOBATPUR, DISTRICT PATNA ………. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. KEWAL KUMAR YADAV, SON OF LATE CHANDAN GOPE, VILLAGE SOHRA, P.S. NOBATPUR, DISTRICT PATNA …….. OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 3. 19.3.2010 The petitioner is aggrieved for having been proclaimed an offender on account of non-appearance in the present proceeding. The first information report was instituted on 9.2.2001 for the offences under Sections 279, 427 and 379 of the I.P.C. against the present petition, who was the driver of a vehicle of the informant. The police released the petitioner on its satisfaction on 12.2.2001 and submitted charge sheet on 31.3.2001 u/ss. 279 and 427 of the I.P.C., both sections being bailable. Cognizance was taken in the case on 16.4.2001 and summons were issued against the petitioner on 7.2.2002 and after having exhausted of the process the court proclaimed the petitioner as absconder on 23.12.2006. The anxiety of the petitioner is if he appears before the court, he will be taken into custody even though the Sections are bailable since he has been proclaimed an offender. In my view, as all the processes have been exhausted against the petitioner, it is not necessary that the trial court should take the petitioner in custody, when the - 2 - petitioner was initially on police bail and could not appear because of having no information about the proceedings. In such view, let petitioner Sushil Kumar appear within three weeks from the date of receipt of the order before Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Danapur in Nobatpur P.S.case No.35 of 2001 G.R.No.215 of 2001/Tr. No.256 of 2006 and on such appearance the petitioner may be released on bail on the satisfaction of the court below specially in view of the fact that the petitioner was on police bail initially. In the result, the application is allowed. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )