IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20856 of 2011 NARENDRA KUMAR SON OF SRI SAHENDRA PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BASUDEOPUR, CHANDEL, P.S. MAHNAR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI, AT PRESENT POSTED AS JUNIOR ENGINEER, NATIONAL HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION, MOHALLA- BALBHADRAPUR, P.S. LAHERIASARAI, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 3 17.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State. Petitioner earlier approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail which was heard and rejected by order dated 17th March, 2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 41344 of 2009 with an observation that in case petitioner surrenders and makes an application for grant of bail the same be considered on its own merit in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the present order. However, the petitioner did not surrender and moved before the Apex Court vide Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3055 of 2011 and the Hon’ble Apex Court upon hearing dismissed the special leave petition by order dated 25th April, 2011. Thereafter, petitioner has filed the present application for grant of anticipatory bail. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that while the matter was being heard either before this Court or the Apex Court, although the allegations made in the first information report was alleging the commission of the offence under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, however during investigation it is suggested that the deceased died by committing suicide. The investigation further suggested that the fact that the deceased was poisoned also could not be found to be correct which would be evident on perusal of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory as contained in Annexure-3. It is further submitted that the post mortem report also did not give any specific opinion as to the cause of death. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State submits that this is not a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. It has come during investigation that the petitioner was with the deceased till about 12.30 P.M. which has come during investigation vide paragraph 82 of the case diary. Considering the submissions of the parties as also the documents brought on record, I am not inclined to take a different view. Accordingly, the present application for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. However, as observed earlier, in case petitioner surrenders in the Court below and makes an application for bail, the same be considered on its own merit in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the present order. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)