The High Court of Patna rejected the petitioner's second application for anticipatory bail in an IPC Section 406 case, relying on a recent Supreme Court order barring successive applications. The court directed the petitioner to surrender and seek regular bail instead.
Petitioner directed to surrender and seek regular bail for consideration on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16721 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2017 Thana- SHASTRINAGAR District- Patna
======================================================
Abrar Ahmed Son of Late Md. Hashim Resident of C-21, R.K. Nagar, FCI Road, Phulwarisharif, District - Patna, At Prsent posted as Asstt. General Manager, Circle office at Hissar, Punjab National Bank, Haryana.
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dr. Pankaj For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nirmal Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER
2 09-02-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case for the offence registered under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
Earlier prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected on merit by a coordinate bench of this court vide order dated 01-12-2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 46918 of 2017. The said order is Annexure-13 to the present application.
This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail.
The Apex Court by its order dated 28-01-2021 passed in SLP (Cri) 213 of 2021 ( G.R. Ananda Babu Vs. The State of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16721 of 2020(2) dt.09-02-2021 2/2
Tamil Nadu) has held that successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained.
I find no reason to interfere with the earlier rejection
order passed in this case. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
If the petitioner surrenders in the court below and seeks regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
A.K.V.//-
U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the court should entertain successive anticipatory bail applications.
Whether a second attempt for anticipatory bail ought to be allowed after earlier rejection on merit.
What relief is available to a petitioner if anticipatory bail is denied.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
SLP (Cri) 213 of 2021 ( G.R. Ananda Babu Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu)Explained¶16
Abrar Ahmed
The State of Bihar
Bandana Kumari
SUDHIR SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
