IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69985 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-448 Year-2010 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Baban Singh @ Baban Kumar @ Baban Kumar Shahi S/O Kedar Singh R/O Village- Jaitpur, P.S- Barahiya, Distt.- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Prabha Devi D/O Ram Swaroop Singh, W/O Subhash Kumar Singh S/O Late Tapeshwar Singh, R/O Village- Panki, P.S- Silao, Distt.- Nalanda. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Parmanand Pd. Nr. Sahi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Khare, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER 5 08-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 448C of 2010 for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. At the outset, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner did not comply with the order dated 29.07.2013 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 22062 of 2013 by a co-ordinate Bench, whereby he was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail on the condition that besides the other conditions mentioned in the order, he shall pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the complainant by way of interim maintenance. As Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69985 of 2024(5) dt.08-04-2025 2/2 such, he should not be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail again. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits in paragraph no. 2 that his earlier anticipatory bail application being Cr. Misc. No. 22062 of 2013 was allowed vide order dated 29.07.2013 by which he was directed to furnish bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount along with bank draft of Rs. 5,000/- (per month) payable in favour of O.P. No.2, within stipulated period, which he failed to comply with. 5. Keeping in view the fact that earlier order passed by this Court in the case of the petitioner is not complied with despite anticipatory bail being granted to him way back in 2013, so now, further bail application is not maintainable and as such this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands rejected. aditya/- (S. B. Pd. Singh, J) U T