IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2742 of 2010 AMIT KUMAR AGRAWAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 26.3.2010 Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Priyasharan Singh, learned A.P.P for the State. From plain perusal of the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge, Purnea, it appears that the petitioner is facing criminal prosecution for certain bailable offences under the Seeds Act 1968 and, therefore, petitioner has no reasonable apprehension of being arrested by the police in any non-bailable offences. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in fact certain direction has been issued by the Dy Superintendent of Police, Forbisganj and Superintendent of Police Araria for arresting the petitioner in the present case by adding an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code . However, there is no legal material before this court to come to a finding that there is any reasonable apprehension of arrest of the petitioner in the present case for any non-bailable offence. In that view of the matter the present application for anticipatory bail is dismissed as not maintainable with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Sessions Judge, Purnea once again, if there is some - 2 - material to show that petitioner is likely to be apprehended by the police for a non-bailable offence. If any such a petition is filed before the learned Sessions Judge and on the basis of the materials available on record, learned Sessions Judge is satisfied that petitioner is accused for a non-bailable offence then he may consider the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner on its own merit. The application stands dismissed as not maintainable with the aforesaid observations and directions. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) M.Rahman