IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28210 of 2010 SHIV SAH SON OF HARIHAR SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NANAUTI, P.S. BASNAHI, DISTRICT SAHARSA – PETITIONER. Versus STATE OF BIHAR—OPP. PARTY. ----------- 2/ 04-08-2010 Heard the parties. This is second attempt by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in a criminal prosecution registered under sections 498A, 494 of the Penal Code as also under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Very recently by order dated 12.05.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 12541 of 2010 ( Annexure-1) the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner was rejected by a reasoned and speaking order. However, other in-laws against whom allegations of demand of dowry and torture were not specific were extended the privilege of anticipatory bail by the said order dated 12.05.2010 itself. Reasons for rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner by the aforesaid order dated 12.05.2010 are reproduced hereunder : ―Learned counsel for the complainant/ informant has submitted that petitioner no1 being in police service is trying to influence the impartial investigation in the present case. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of petitioner no.1- Shiv Sah, father-in-law of the complainant/ informant, is rejected. He must 2 surrender in the court below in connection with Mansi P.S. Case No. 140 of 2008 ( G.R. No. 1902/2008) within a period of four weeks from today and seek regular bail, if advised. If such a petition is filed, the same shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order.” By the previous order dated 12.05.2010 the petitioner was directed to surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from that date. Obviously the petitioner has not complied with the direction issued by this Court and instead almost on same set of the fact, he has filed the present petition, renewing his payer for anticipatory bail. This Court does not find any good ground for taking the different view than the view, which was taken in the previous order dated 12.05.2010 rejecting his prayer for anticipatory bail. The present petition for anticipatory bail is rejected once again. Now the petitioner must surrender in the court below without any further delay and seek regular bail. BTiwary/ (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)