Patna High CourtCR. MISC./34205/2026withdrawn

Lali Ray @ Ranjit Ray v. The State Of Bihar

2026-07-17Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34205 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-305 Year-2025 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Lali Ray @ Ranjit Ray S/o Kivi Ray @ Lagan Ray Resident of VillageSabalpur Chaharam, P.S.- Sonepur, Dist.- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Bhawana Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ahmad Ali ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 17-07-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner had earlier moved this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing criminal miscellaneous no. 67861 of 2025 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated 07.10.2025 but then petitioner could not surrender within time.

3. On query of the Court whether any modification application was filed seeking extension of time on which learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that no modification application was filed seeking extension of time.

4. At this stage, learned A.P.P. submits that the said

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34205 of 2026(2) dt.17-07-2026 2/2 criminal miscellaneous no. 67861 of 2025 was allowed by an order dated 07.10.2025 with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the learned Trial Court within period of six weeks. Learned A.P.P. in a lighter way submits that this Court is taking a consistent view of not extending the period of surrender if the accused has not surrendered within the time stipulated in the order by which the petitioner was granted the anticipatory bail and this perhaps explains why learned counsel for the petitioner did not file a modification application.

5. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application.

6. Permission is accorded.

7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikram/- U T