AMIT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is present in person in Court.

(2.) Apart from other aspects, counsel for the State has also pointed out that petitioner has been eluding the police and therefore Non-Bailable Warrants have been issued for his arrest. Under the circumstances, the petitioner's position appears to be that there is some inherent right available to citizens to abscond the moment they fear an accusation and arrest; and to remain away from the reach of the police even after their initial application seeking anticipatory bail is refused by a competent court; till such time as they are able to persuade the courts, through their counsel, to grant anticipatory bail in subsequent applications. In response, counsel for the petitioner took the stand that the petitioner has always been available throughout and to show his bonafides, he is also present before this Court and will take the consequences of whatever order that is passed.

(3.) After some arguments, counsel for the petitioner states that he does not wish to press this petition any further, and wishes to withdraw the same.