IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27597 of 2011 Madan Mohan Sinha Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 3. 28.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State. Petitioner is one of the named accused in this 18 years case and apprehends his arrest. Submission is that earlier during investigation petitioner was granted privilege under Section 438 Cr. P.C. by the Court of learned Sessions Judge itself in the year 1994. Privilege was extended from time to time. Ultimately, finding no material showing any apprehension of being apprehended, application for anticipatory bail was ultimately rejected being infructuous, even the petitioner subsequent to the aforesaid order of learned Sessions Judge, was present before the Court below but his application intimating such affairs was only kept on record nothing more could be done. Much, thereafter, Police submitted charge sheet and cognizance was taken as early as in the year 2001 but at no point of time petitioner was ever noticed. Consequently, he took no step, but he has subsequently been declared absconder against which one Cr. Misc. No. 40243 of 2010 under Section 482 Cr. P.C. seeking quashing of order declaring him absconder is preferred which is still pending before a bench of this Court. The petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail which has been refused by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground of its being not maintainable since earlier he has availed the privilege. The 2 learned Additional Public Prosecutor also objected the prayer mainly on the ground that earlier in pursuance of the privilege granted by the Sessions Judge the petitioner surrendered before the Court below, released on bail which was extended from time to time, but ultimately disposed of. Considering the facts and circumstances, especially petitioner availing the privilege of bail till his prayer for anticipatory bail before learned Sessions Judge was finally disposed of, being infructuous finding no material to show any reason for, he may be taken into custody. Prayer for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr. P.C. is not maintainable accordingly disposed of. However, in the event of petitioner surrendering before the Court below within a fortnight and seek regular bail, the Court below shall consider the prayer on its own merit including the facts that earlier petitioner was granted the privilege and the circumstances under which his prayer was found infructuous and also whether at any point of time he was served with any notice either personal, or through his counsel, after order taking cognizance. With the aforesaid observation this application stands disposed of. Saif/- (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)