IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38575 of 2008 SHAILENDRA KUMAR KAUSHIK Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 12.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is an accused in a Police case under Section 379 and other provisions of the Penal Code and Sections 135, 136 of the Electricity Act. The allegations are that the petitioner and the co- accused, who are brothers, were committing theft of electricity by illegal use at their saw mill premises causing a total revenue loss of approximately over 40 lacs to the State Electricity Board. They chased the officials of the Electricity Board with revolver and threatened them and snatched away the seized items. The first information report was registered on 28.8.2004. He came to this Court for anticipatory bail in March, 2005 in Cr. Misc. No. 10236 of 2005. The order sheet of the same reflects that it was listed thrice when it was adjourned at the request of the petitioner. No one on the fourth occasion appeared when it was dismissed for non-prosecution. No restoration application was filed and on the contrary a fresh application for anticipatory bail was filed two years later in June, 2007 registered as Cr. Misc. No. 27923 of 2007. The order dated 3.8.2007 in the same makes it very apparent that after having argued the application on its merits and having failed to persuade the Court to 2 grant the privilege of anticipatory bail, prayer was made for leave to convert it into an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This was allowed. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was ultimately dismissed on 9.7.2008. Thereafter this fresh application for anticipatory bail has been filed on 8.9.2008. To this Court from the order dated 3.8.2007 in Cr. Misc. No. 27923 of 2007 once this Court had expressed its mind that it was not inclined to grant him the privilege of anticipatory bail, the petitioner by repeated applications cannot be permitted to reagitate the same matter in a fresh form. The conduct of the petitioner is only symptomatic of his attempt to play with the law rather than respect and subject himself to the law. In any event, the allegations are very serious. The social menace of the aspect cannot be ignored. Co-accused has been granted regular bail to be released only after deposit of money in Cr. Misc. No. 38419 of 2004 by order dated 18.2.2005, which came to be affirmed by the Apex Court in S.L.P. The application is rejected. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)