IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11585 of 2009 VISHESWAR PANDIT Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 06.05.2009 Heard. By the present petition, the petitioner has renewed his prayer which was earlier rejected vide order dated 24.10.2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 41116 of 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner, besides touching upon the merits of the matter states that during the date the alleged fraud occurred, the petitioner was on leave just prior to that date and continued on leave for a very long period and in between the forgery and fraud were completed. Other contention is that other accused persons who owe some more serious allegation than that which appear against the petitioner, have been granted bail by this Court vide orders as contained in Annexures 6 and 7 to the petition. Contention further was that the petitioner after having come to know about the fraud which had been committed had reported the matter to the higher ups, which was his defence while he moved anticipatory bail petition which was disposed of by order as contained in Annexure 1. I do not want to go into the merit of the case inasmuch as the accused persons are likely to face the trial for the offence they are alleged to have committed and as such, in spite of having pointed out the relevance of the petitioner proceeding on leave to the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not put the same fact on record and specially in the present order. Deliberation with the learned counsel - 2 - for the petitioner was clear and I have communicated my mind thoroughly and completely as to how proceeding on leave could be a very relevant fact to be taken into account by the learned trial Judge. As regards grant of bail to other accused persons, I believe that I have a right to take my own view in the matter dependent upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Petition is dismissed. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)