Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14983 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-2022 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Rahul Kumar SON OF WAKIL SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGEBALKUNDA, PS- MANSI, DISTT- KHAGARIA ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Priyanka Bharti Daughter Of Sri Umesh Singh Resident Of VillageBishupuria, Ps- Khariak, Distt- Bhagalpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Avinava Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms.Meena Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-08-2024 1.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2.
The learned APP, at the outset, submits that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur was directed to remain physically present by order dated by order dated 21-8-2024. It is further submitted that the case pertained to Naugachia, as such, the S.S.P, Bhagalpur informed the S.P. Naugachia to remain present in the court today in compliance of the order dated 21-8-2024. It is further submitted that the Superintendent of Police, Naugachia is present in the court.
3.
The Superintendent of Police, Naugachia submits that earlier endeavours were made to get the notice under Section 41(A)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14983 of 2024(6) dt.23-08-2024 2/2 of the Cr.P.C served on the petitioner, but then the same could not be served as petitioner was not present in his house, hence notice under Section 41(A) of the Cr.P..C was sent by speed-post, but then fairly submits that he does not have the tracking report, as such, he is not aware whether notice under Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C has been received by the petitioner or his family members or not, but then submits that notice under Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C shall be issued to the petitioner in accordance with law by day after tomorrow. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner based on the submission made by the Superintendent of Police Naugachia, seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application. 5.
Permission is accorded.
6.
Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn.
7.
The personal appearance of the Superintendent of Police, Naugachia and the Investigating Officer of the case is dispensed with.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) SUMIT/- U T