IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35992 of 2010 KAMLA KANT,SON OF SARYU PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KAMALPUR, P.S. DHEENA, DISTRICT- CHANDAULI (U.P.) – PETITIONER. Versus STATE OF BIHAR —OPP. PARTY. with Cr.Misc. No.39689 of 2010 SARJU PRASAD SON OF LATE GANESH PRASAD, RESIDENT OF STATE BANK CHOWK GOPALGANJ, P.S. GOPALGANJ, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ --- PETITIONER. Versus STATE OF BIHAR – OPP. PARTY. ----------- 4/ 26-03-2011 Heard the parties. The petitioners in both cases, apprehending their arrest in a criminal prosecution registered in the year 2003 for offences under sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, had earlier approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail by filing a common petition vide Cr.Misc.No.56667 of 2007, which was heard along with Cr. Misc. No. 53366 of 2007 and Cr. Misc. No. 1631 of 2008 filed by the co-accused persons, but all the aforesaid criminal miscellaneous petitions were rejected by a Bench of this Court by a reasoned and speaking order dated 14.05.2008 (Annexure-1 to the petition). The petitioners, Kamla Kant and Sarju Prasad, were posted and working as Executive Engineer and Junior Engineer, respectively, in Tube-well Division at Sasaram. These two petitioners along with some other Government officials are alleged to have swindled huge amount of government money (Rs. 17.11 2 lacs) in collusion with the contractor without works having been executed. The materials collected during the course of investigation against the petitioners besides other accused persons, have already been detailed in order dated 14.05.2008 passed by a Bench of this Court, rejecting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners on earlier occasion for grant of anticipatory bail. Apparently, despite the order dated 14.05.2008 (Annexure-1) rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail on earlier occasion, the petitioners have chosen not to surrender in the court below and seek regular bail. They are absconding in the case since 2003, when the present F.I.R. , vide Annexure-2, was registered. There are absolutely no fresh materials to reconsider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail. In fact, almost on same set of fact, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that previous order dated 14.05.2008 should be reviewed and the petitioners may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail in the present case. After hearing the parties at length, this Court does not find any good ground for reviewing the previous order dated 14.05.2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 56667 of 2007 and for extending the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, who have successfully delayed the process 3 of law for about eight years by not appearing in the court. For the reasons recorded above, the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioners is rejected once again. They must surrender in the court below in connection with Akorhigola P.S. Case No. 29 of 2003 dated 03.05.2003 pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Rohtas at Sasaram and seek regular bail, if so advised, which shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order, rejecting their prayer for anticipatory bail. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)