IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47397 of 2008 1. RABENDRA KUMAR @ BABLOO YADAV 2. PRAVIN KUMAR @ PRAVIN YADAV @ BANA YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 26.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners renew their prayer for anticipatory bail in a Police case under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code. Earlier the application for anticipatory bail in Cr. Misc. No. 15789 of 2007 was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.4.2007 on the submission that the petitioner intended to surrender and seek regular bail. It is a matter of common practice in this Court that such orders are passed when the petitioner is unable to persuade the Court to grant relief and considers it proper in his own interest to withdraw the application rather than to invite an adverse verdict. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that final form was submitted on 16.1.2007 when the petitioners were not sent up for trial and differing with which cognizance has been taken. He additionally relies upon an order of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 39261 of 2008 dated 24.10.2008 that one of the named accused, who is alleged to have fired, has been granted anticipatory bail considering the submission that he was not the assailant and that injuries had been sustained by firing attributed to two other named accused. 2 In essence what the petitioner seeks to do. To indulge in a gamble. When he finds that the Court is not granting any relief, he withdraws the application on the submission that he proposes to surrender. He does not surrender, He waits for an order in similar matter in another case and then comes back to this Court urging that since co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail, he should also be granted anticipatory bail, notwithstanding the fact that on the previous occasion he was unable to persuade this Court and voluntarily withdrew his application. The final form on which the petitioner seeks to rely is dated 16.1.2007. His application was withdrawn on the previous occasion thereafter on 16.4.2007. The fact that the petitioners are alleged to have been the members of unlawful assembly, some of whom armed and fired killing the deceased seeking anticipatory bail is an aspect not considered in Cr. Misc. No. 39261 of 2008. The application is rejected. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)