NARMADA DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) No case for anticipatory bail is made out. The bail application is dismissed. The Investigating officer of the case was called. He was asked as to why after rejection of the first bail application by the Sessions Court on 22.11.2000, the arrest of the accused persons was not made so far. He submitted written submission.

(3.) The first submission is that due to pendency of anticipatory bail application before this Court, the arrest was not made. This is a bogus alibi raised by the Investigating Officer. Day in and day out during pendency of the anticipatory bail applications where there are no interim directions, arrest of the accused is being made. This is only a cover for its inefficiency and inaction.