Ajit Patel v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30291 of 2025 In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52998 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-184 Year-2020 Thana- BEUR District- Patna ====================================================== Ajit Patel S/O Chandeshwar Patel @ Chandeshwar Mahtoo Resident of Village- Khorampur, Mahnar, P.S.- Mahnar, District- Vaishali, at present Rajiv Nagar Road No. -24, P.S.- Rajiv Nagar, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Swati Parmar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 02-05-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was granted regular bail by an order dated 14.02.2022 in Cr. Misc. No.52998 of 2021 with a condition that one of the bailor of the petitioner shall be his father Chandeshwar Patel.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant modification application has been filed seeking modification of the order dated 14.02.2022 in Cr. Misc. No.52998 of 2021 on the ground that the condition of grant of bail that one of the bailor of the petitioner shall be his father be modified as father of the petitioner died.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30291 of 2025(2) dt.02-05-2025 2/2

4. The learned A.P.P. Sri Rabindra Kumar submits that from perusal of the pleadings made at Para-8 of the modification application, it would manifest that it has been pleaded that father of the petitioner died on 12.10.2024 as would manifest from Annexure- P/2 to the modification application. The learned A.P.P. next submits that it absolutely does not stand to reason that if the petitioner was granted the privilege of regular bail by an order dated 14.02.2022 in Cr. Misc. No.52998 of 2021 with a condition that one of the bailor shall be his father, then why the petitioner did not seek bail when his father was alive. It is next submitted that father of the petitioner died on 12.10.2024 i.e. after more than two years eight months of the order by which petitioner was granted the privilege of bail, as such, it is submitted that the ground on which the order is being sought to be modified does not exist.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to allow the modification application.

6. The modification application stands rejected. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T