IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2060 of 2011 RAJ KUMAR RAJA, S/o Late Lakhan Ram, Resident of Vill.+P.O.-Jhiktia, P.S.- Maheshkhurt, Distt.-Khagaria. .............Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ............Opposite Party. ----------- 2/ 09.02.2011 Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Pushpa Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner has approached this Court for second time for grant of anticipatory bail with respect to a criminal prosecution registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. On the previous occasion, the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 12.05.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 12634 of 2010 (Annexure 2) with a direction to surrender in the court below within four weeks and pray for regular bail, if so advised. Obviously, the petitioner has not surrendered in the court below and instead filed the present petition once again for grant of anticipatory bail. Matter relates to appointment on the post of 2 Constable on the basis of certain forged documents. The petitioner is alleged to have obtained appointment letter in the name of some other person by showing wrong date of birth and after inquiry held by the Superintendent of Police, the F.I.R. was lodged by the Commandant of B.M.P. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner is prepared to co-operate with the investigation and no useful purpose would be served by sending him to judicial custody. According to him, the allegation seems to be not fully correct and he prays that the privilege under Section 438 Cr.P.C. may be extended to the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has strongly opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that in view of nature of allegation against the petitioner, he does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. After having heard the parties at length and considered the submissions made on their behalf, this Court is not inclined to review its previous order dated 12.05.2010. In view of nature of allegation in the F.I.R., the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. It is accordingly rejected once again. The petitioner is 3 directed to surrender and seek regular bail, if so advised. After surrender, if the petitioner makes a prayer for regular bail, the court below will be obliged to take into consideration that the petitioner was a Government Servant working in the Police Department and there is no chance of his absconding. If the court is otherwise satisfied on the merit of the case, his prayer for regular bail be considered sympathetically without being prejudiced by the observations made above. Anjani/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J )