IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22224 of 2010 DEEPAK KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 19.07. 2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 409 and 420/34 of the I.P.C. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present case has been filed with frivolous allegations. In fact, the informant’s side has grabbed some portion of the petitioner’s share in the building and for that litigation is going on between the parties and with regard to same, some direction was issued by this Court in Cr. W.J.C. No. 280 of 2009 as contained in Annexure-3. Moreover, the allegation of informant is that he invested 15 lacs rupees in the Financial Company on persuasion of the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the specific case of the informant is that he invested 15 2 lacs in Rituraj Homes Pvt. Ltd. in which the petitioner is no way associated. Without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, since the F.I.R. was instituted in the year 1998 and the petitioner’s earlier bail application was dismissed as withdrawn by an order of this court in 2001, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is dismissed. If the petitioner files regular bail application, the same will be considered by learned court below on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order of this Court and the learned court below may also consider the fact that others have already been granted bail. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)