IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11052 of 2010 1. Umesh Singh, son of Sri Jagdish Singh, resident of Mohalla-Club Road, Ara, Opposite to Block Office, Ara, Police Station- Ara Nawada in the district of Bhojpur. 2. Munmun Singh @ Ranjan Kumar @ Munmun Rai, son Of Ram Murat Singh, resident of Village-Jamuaon, P.S. Piro, in the district of Bhojpur, presently residing in Mohalla- Katira, Police Station- Ara Nawada in the District of Bhojpur. 3. Nischal Kumar @ Chandan Kumar, son of Sri Binay Pandey, resident of Village- Sabalpur, Police Station- Barhara Police Station- Ara Nawada, in the district of Bhojpur, presently residing in Mohalla- Tilak Nagar, Katira, Police Station- Ara Nawada, in the ditrict of Bhojpur. 4. Navin Kumar, son of Sri Praful Chand Rai, resident of Village- Jamuaon, Police Station-Piro, in the district of Bhojpur, presently residing in Mohalla-Milki Anaith, Hanuman Nagar, Police Station- Ara Nawada, in the District of Bhojpur…………………………..Petitioners. Versus The State of Bihar ……………………………Opposite Party. ----------- For the petitioners :- Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. L. K. Sharma, A.P.P. 2. 26. 04. 2010. Heard the parties. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Ara Nawada P.S. Case No. 3 of 2003 dated 03. 01. 2003, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 353, 332, 333, 324, 307, 436 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have been named in the F.I.R. on the basis of statement made by some of the apprehended co-accused persons, but there is no specific allegation of any specific overtact against these petitioners and therefore, they are entitled for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the State has strongly opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that the case was instituted 2 as far back as in year 2003, and though petitioners are named in the F.I.R. as accused, yet they have successfully avoided the process of the Court and they are still absconding and on that ground they are not entitled for privilege of anticipatory bail. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly in view of fact that petitioners remained absconding for about seven years, their prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. The petitioners must surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today and if so advised, seek regular bail, which shall be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order. m.p. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)