Rajesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22802 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-168 Year-2019 Thana- AGIAON BAZAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Rajesh Yadav, Son of Birendra Yadav, Resident of Village - Lahthan, P.S.- Agiaon Bazar, District - Bhojpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Sharda Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 13-11-2020 Since as of now the Courts have not resumed normal physical hearing, the matter has been listed today for consideration through video conferencing.

The learned counsels are appearing and making submissions from their residence. The Court Master and Secretary are also part of this virtual Court proceedings from their homes, all with the aid of audio visual technology. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Agion Bazar P.S.Case No.168 of 2019 registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, which is pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-XI, Bhojpur at Ara.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22802 of 2020(3) dt.13-11-2020 2/2 Ms. Sharda Kumari, learned APP is appearing for the State as it is submitted that the brief has been allotted to her by the office of Advocate General.

After some arguments, petitioner's counsel submits that since he would be raising the issue regarding implication of the petitioner in this case due to dispute arising out of wages before the court concerned at the time of availing the remedy of regular bail, he does not wish to press the application. The application is permitted to be withdrawn. This Court would only observe that since the petitioner is being permitted to approach the court below concerned for regular bail, the court should consider the petitioner's application without being in any manner affected by the withdrawal of the instant application for pre-arrest bail. This Court would expect that the petitioner's counsel would honour his undertaking in the instant proceedings regarding supply of the requisite court fee etc. within two weeks from the date he is called upon to do so by the office. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) PNM U T