Patna High CourtCR. MISC./30494/2026rejected

Golu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-01Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30494 of 2026 In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10089 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-914 Year-2024 Thana- KADAMKUAN District- Patna ====================================================== Golu Kumar, Gender-Male, aged about 19 years, S/o Raju Shahni @ Raj Sahani, Resident of East Lohanipur, Railway Hunder Road, Police StationKadamkuan, Distt.- Patna, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Md. Nazir Ansari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 01-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (A) Act, 2022.

3. This is the modification petition filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and he submits that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 17.02.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.10089 of 2026 with an observation that the petitioner "in the event of his arrest or surrender before the trial Court within six weeks from today" but the petitioner could not surrender within time due to a communication gap between the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30494 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026 2/2 learned counsel and the pairvikar, the petitioner could not receive timely guidance which resulted in bonafide confusion regarding the procedure of surrender before the court below and consequently led to an inadvertent and unintentional delay in surrender as stated in para-5 of the petition.

4. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and also there is no appropriate ground to consider the modification petition, so this Court is not inclined to allow the modification petition.

5. Accordingly, the modification petition is dismissed. (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T