IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17115 of 2009 KRISHNA SAHNI @ KRISHNA KUMAR SAHNI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 19.5.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The anticipatory bail petition was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran on 15.4.2009 and it was directed to be listed for hearing on 16.4.2009. On 16.4.2009 the Public Prosecutor raised a preliminary point as appears from the order passed by the learned Judge that in absence of any document showing apprehension of arrest of the petitioner, the anticipatory bail petition could not be considered. The petitioner is not named in either of the two FIRs which was registered for the same incident vide Majhoulia P.S.case No.293 of 2008 and Majhoulia P.S.case No.338 of 2008 in respect of the same incident. The learned Judge did not call for the case diary and, as such, there was legitimate reason that he could not discuss as to what could be the materials against the petitioner on which the prayer for bail could be dismissed. It appears that the - 2 - learned Judge was influenced by the submission made before him by the Public Prosecutor on maintainability of the petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and as such, he went on to dismiss the petition. I could refer to the learned Judge the decision of this court in the case of Sri Krishna Gupta Vrs. The State of Bihar reported in 2007(3) BBCJ 118 in which it has been decided as to when a petition for anticipatory bail could be maintained by an accused before a competent court. I, as such, direct the rehearing of the anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah on its own merits after seeking the production of the relevant police records and passing an order on merits of the case. The petition shall get restored to its original number and file on an early date on receipt/production of a copy of this order. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )