Rahul Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30367 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-149 Year-2020 Thana- RAMNAGAR District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.

RAHUL SAH Son of Sri Brind Sah Resident of Village - Madhubani (Uttar), P.S.- Ramnagar, District - West Champaran.

2.

Guddu Sah Son of Sri Brind Sah Resident of Village - Madhubani (Uttar), P.S.- Ramnagar, District - West Champaran.

3.

Raju Sah Son of Sri Binod Sah Resident of Village - Madhubani (Uttar), P.S.- Ramnagar, District - West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 23-12-2020 This case has been listed at the instance of Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners. By order dated 17.12.2020, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 was allowed and they were directed to surrender before the court below within a period of ten weeks and the court below was directed to grant them bail on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. Ten Thousand (Rs. Ten Thousand) each with sureties of like amount. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that because of lack of communication, he could not know that all the three petitioners had already surrendered before the court

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30367 of 2020(3) dt.23-12-2020 2/2 below and, therefore, it could not be pointed out before this Court.

Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners is cautioned to be more careful in future while making submissions.

In any view of the matter, the order dated 17.12.2020 has become infrcutuous as it would have been implemented only if the petitioners nos. 1 and 2 had not been arrested or had not surrendered. The same is recalled.

It may also be noted that the application with respect to petitioner no. 3 was rejected by the aforesaid order. The petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) sunilkumar/- U T