IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45582 of 2009 RAM AUTAR YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 2.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has approached this court for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Pandoul P.S. case no. 363 of 1989 corresponding to G.R. No. 2241 of 1989 which was registered under section 279 and 304( A) of the Indian Penal Code. Apparently both the offences are bailable one and in normal circumstances the petitioner was entitled to get bail in terms of section 436 Cr.P.C. However, it appears that petitioner has been absconding in the present case and, therefore, warrant of arrest was issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had moved before the revisional court challenging the order taking cognizance which has been recently dismissed in the year 2009. Be that as it may, still the offences alleged are bailable one and case is of the year 1989, this court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner must surrender in the court - 2 - below within four weeks from today and seek regular bail, if so advised. If such a petition is filed, then the same may be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order. Learned court below while considering the prayer for bail, may also take into consideration the provisions of section 436 Cr.P.C. Let the order be communicated to the court of C.J.M, Madhubani, through fax at the cost of the petitioner. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) M.Rahman