MAHENDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) IT appears from the impugned order of the Sessions Court that petitioner 'sprayer for anticipatory bail U/S 438 of the Cr. P.C. was rejected on the ground that it is not maintainable because according to the FIR a case U/Ss -364, 323, 307/34 of the IPC which are non -bailable offences, was instituted against the accused persons including the petitioner and it further appears that in course of the investigation petitioner was taken into custody by the police and then granted benefit of police bail under the provisions of Section 437(2) of the Cr. P.C.

(3.) ON considering the relevant provision in the Code of Criminal Procedures, this Court is of the opinion that had the FIR been only for bailable offences and had the petitioner been granted benefit of bail by the police for bailable offences only under the provisions of Section 436 of the Cr. P.C. the matter could have stood on different footing. On account of offence being treated as non - bailable at the later stage due to subsequent developments, may be an application for anticipatory bail could have been found maintainable. However, in the present case which is falling for consideration this Court is of the view that since the case was initially for non -bailable offences wherein the petitioner was taken into custody and then released on bail by the police, an application for anticipatory bail on the ground that he has an apprehension of arrest in the same case cannot be held to be maintainable.