IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3391 of 2011 DR. SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA, son of Late B.P Sinha Resident of quarter No. 40 M.sI.G.H. Kankerbag Colony, P.S-Kankerbagh, Dist- Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Satish Kumar, son of Harendra Prasad, Resident of Mohalla chitragupt Nagar, Kankerbagh Postal Park Road No. 1 P.S. Kankerbagh, Dist-Patna. ----------- 2 30.03.2011 Heard Sri Shakeel Ahmed Khan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Baxi S.R.P. Saha learned Senior counsel appearing for the complainant of complaint case No. 1750 ( C ) of 2003 as also learned Additional public prosecutor on behalf of the State The grievance of the petitioner was that the Magistrate Ist Class, Patna while refusing his prayer to be allowed to be represented under Section 205 of the Cr. P.C through his counsel, was completely going out of the rationale of that particular provision. During deliberations it was revealed that the petitioner has now been admitted to anticipatory bail by the order of the Sessions Judge, Patna in Case No. 5861 2010 dated 10.2.2011. It is too well known to be pointed out that as soon as an accused is granted bail and as soon as he furnishes bond in form No. 45, he surrenders himself to the custody of the Court and bail bond is executed so as to continue in the constructive custody of the Court. If that could be the position of law as has been recognized, then there could not be any 2 question of being represented through a counsel under the provisions of Section 205 of Cr.P.C. Provision is already available to the petitioner under Section 317 Cr.P.C . At this stage learned counsel wanted to withdraw the petition. This petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with the above observation. Anand Kr. /Prakash ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)