IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1357 of 2010 CHANDAN KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 6.4.2010 Heard Mr. Shivenard Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bihta P.S. case No. 261 of 2008 dated 2.11.2008 registered under sections 407, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently offence under sections 395, 412 of the Indian penal Code as also under section 25(1-b) A of the Arms Act was added. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not named in the first information report and there is no direct material to connect him with the offence in question. During the course of investigation one of the co-accused has named one Chandan Kumar but there are two Chandan Kumar, therefore, identity of both Chandan Kumar are required to be verified. He also submits that petitioner was not present at the alleged P.O. and he was under treatment of some doctor. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner has been absconding since 2008 and there is ample material to show the complicity of the petitioner in the crime in question. In that view of the matter, and in the facts and circumstances the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner is rejected. He must surrender in the court below within a period of for weeks from today and seek regular bail, if so advised. If such a bail petition is filed, then the - 2 - same may be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) M.Rahman