IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.19661 of 2010 SANTOSH RAUT, S/O CHARITAR RAM, R/O VILLAGE JAINAGAR, P.S. JAINAGAR, DIST. MADHUBANI .. PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR .. OPPOSITE PARTY **** /3/ 30.06.2010 Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 2. This application is for anticipatory bail for offence under Sections 410, 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. There is allegation that Rs.45,000/- was received by the petitioner on the pretext for providing service and appointment letter was issued and got the informant engaged in pretext of training for two months and then gave a cheque amounting to Rs.4840/-was given by accused no. 1, Amit Kumar, which bounced. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is in service under accused no. 1, Amit Kumar, however, there is allegation that money Rs.45,000/- was paid to accused no. 2 and this petitioner has counted and gave it to Amit Kumar and all three accused persons insisted to ensure service. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 2 petitioner. The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. 5. However, if the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail, that will be considered on it’s own merit without being prejudiced of this order. S.A. ( Gopal Prasad, J. )