IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14532 of 2009 DINESH KUMAR TIWARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 01.09.2009 Heard both sides. Sole petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case instituted under Sections 465, 471,488 and 200 of the Penal Code and Section 18( C) and 27(b) (ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. This is the second attempt of the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail. Petitioner had earlier approached this court in Cr. Misc. No. 36235 of 2008 which was sought to be withdrawn on the submission that all the offences for which he has been charged are bailable. Subsequently one of the petitioners of the said case (son of the petitioner) surrendered but he was refused bail by the C.J.M. Muzaffarpur. Subsequently as submitted he has been granted bail by the Learned Sessions Judge. On that strength the petitioner has approached this court once again. Allegation is that he was found running a pharmacy without valid license. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to a judgment rendered in 2002 (2) BCCR 38 submits that any offence for which maximum punishment is up to 03 years shall be bailable. His submission is, therefore, that the learned C.J.M. has erred in holding that the offences under the Drugs and 2 Cosmetic Act are non-bailable. Be that as it may, looking to the allegation and the fact that petitioner had earlier approached this court which was disposed of, I am not inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail. Let petitioner surrender and apply for regular bail and make appropriate submissions with reference to the fact as well as the law cited before this court which shall be considered and disposed of by the learned court below and pass appropriate order thereof uninfluenced by the present order passed by this court in the present proceeding. With this observation, this application stands disposed of. Sym/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)