Pintu Kumar @ Prem Shankar Nirala v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22468 of 2019 In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64342 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2017 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna ====================================================== Pintu Kumar @ Prem Shankar Nirala, aged about 32 years, ( Male ) son of Shri Upendra Prasad, resident of village- Marut Nagar Chiranyatand, P.S.- Jakkanpur, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Sri Y.C. Verma, Senior Advocate Sri Anuj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Smt. Meena Singh For the informant :

Sri Rajeev Ranjan Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10-04-2019 Heard Sri Y.C. Verma, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri Anuj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri Rajeev Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel for the informant.

The present petition was filed with a prayer to restore Cr. Misc. No. 64342 of 2018 [Pintu Kumar @ Prem Shankar Nirala Vs. The State of Bihar], which stood dismissed on 05.03.2019 due to non prosecution.

Sri Verma, learned senior counsel tried to persuade the court that petitioner was falsely implicated in the case since on the same date father of informant of the present case had filed a case against the present informant and others. He submits that petitioner was the driver of father of informant. On aforesaid grounds a prayer has been made for granting anticipatory bail.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22468 of 2019(2) dt.10-04-2019 2/2 On perusal of the order dated 05.03.2019 it is evident that though anticipatory bail petition stood dismissed due to non prosecution, while dismissing this court had noticed that in the F.I.R. there was specific accusation that petitioner firstly had put pistol on the temporal region of the informant and tried to outrage her modesty. In that view of the matter, no purpose would be served in restoring the anticipatory bail petition. Accordingly, the restoration petition stands dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar, J) praful/- U T