Anant Bijay Singh, J. - (1.) Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chirkunda (Maithan) P.S. Case No. 53 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 654 of 2015, registered under Sections 420, 384, 34 of the I.P.C., lodged on the basis of one written report given by one Arbind Kumar alleging that under orders of Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, he along with other special officers conducted raid upon the check post of Transport Department at Maithan and found three persons issuing receipts who disclosed their names as Pramod Kumar, Pankaj Singh and Sagar Keshri and they have issued 16 receipts, although they were not employees of Government and they further disclosed that at the instance of Pranav Kumar Gahlot (petitioner), they are issuing the receipts and Rs. 93,800/- was recovered from their possession . It is further alleged that the petitioner at that point of time was posted as Transport Enforcement Officer at the Check Post.
(2.) It is relevant to note that petitioner had earlier moved before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 1183 of 2015, which was dismissed by this Court under order dated 22.07.2015. Thereafter, he had moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Appeal (Crl.) No. 6660 of 2015, which was also dismissed on 22.08.2016 and again he had preferred A.B.A. No. 4034 of 2016, which was dismissed by this Court under order dated 06.12.2016, as the process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. was issued against him by the court below, against which petitioner had preferred Cr.M.P. No. 79 of 2017, which was allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and thereafter, this fresh anticipatory bail application has been filed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically submitted that the Special Leave Appeal (Crl.) was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court without assigning any reasons, so rejection of the anticipatory bail application by order dated 22.07.2015 passed in A.B.A. No. 1183 of 2015 cannot be said to have been merged with the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the instant anticipatory bail application has been filed as the witnesses have been declared hostile in a separate trial in which some of the coaccused are being tried. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of this new fact, this anticipatory bail application is maintainable.;