IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19774 of 2010 1. Ram Chandra Rai, son of Late Gulab Rai 2. Gopal Rai, son 3. Anil Rai 4. Sudhir Rai @ Moti Rai. Sons of Ram Chandra Rai. All resident of Village- Lotan, P.S. Sakra, District- Muzaffarpur. ……………………………Petitioners. Versus The State of Bihar ………………………..Opposite Party. ----------- 2. 21. 06. 2010. Heard the parties. The petitioners have filed this application for grant of anticipatory bail with respect to the case instituted for offences under Sections 448, 341, 323, 307 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that during the course of investigation, allegations against the petitioners as disclosed in the F.I.R vide Annexure-1 were not supported by the independent witnesses. Police also did not find any material for submitting the charge sheet against the petitioners for offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. However, on close of investigation, Police submitted Final Form for offences under Sections 341, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which all are bailable one. Since accusation against the petitioners were found true for only bailable offences, therefore, they were granted bail by the Police in terms of Section 436 (1) of Cr.P.C. However, learned C.J.M. disagreed with the Police report and has taken cognizance under Section 308 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code 2 against the petitioners. It is well settled that once accused persons either surrender in the court or are taken in police custody, then their prayer for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Reference may be made in this regard to the cases of Mahendra Pd. Singh Vrs. State of Bihar, reported in 2004 (3) P.L.J.R. 491, Shiv Chandra Singh Vrs. State of Bihar, reported in 2007 (4) B.B.C.J. V-66 as also an unreported case of Jagnarayan Yadav @ Babajee Yadav & others Vrs. State of Bihar passed recently by this Court on 18. 03. 2010, in Cr. Misc. No. 7453 of 2010. In view of ratio decidendi in the cases referred to above, the present application for grant of anticipatory bail is not maintainable and it is accordingly, rejected. However, it is submitted that petitioners have not misused the privilege of bail granted to them by the Police. In that view of the matter, if the petitioners surrender in the court below within four weeks from today and seek regular bail, then it is hoped that they will be given benefits of the observations made by this Court in the cases referred to above. Let this order be communicated to the court below through FAX at the cost of the petitioners. m.p ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)