← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./36206/2025dismissed

Manoj Singh @ Sardar Manoj Singh v. The Union Of India Through The Principal Commissioner (Customs), C.R. Building B.C. Patel Path

2025-06-20Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36206 of 2025 In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27896 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-361 Year-2022 Thana- ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BIHAR District- Patna ====================================================== Manoj Singh @ Sardar Manoj Singh, Son Of Sardar Rameshwar Singh Resident Of Mohalla -JANI Bazar, Gurudwara Road, PO And PS -Sasaram, District -Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union of India through the Principal Commissioner (Customs), C.R. Building B.C. Patel Path Patna, Bihar 2.

The Director, Revenue Intelligence, C.R. Building, B.C. Patel Path, Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pranab Kumar- Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh (A.S.G) Mr. Anshuman Singh- Adv. for DRI/Custom ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-06-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the DRI and Customs.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the DRI and Customs, at the outset, objects the restoration application and submits that the same is not maintainable for the reason that petitioner had earlier moved this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.19763 of 2024 and the same came to be rejected by an order dated 18.04.2024 against which the petitioner moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing S.L.P. (Criminal) Diary No.49460 of 2024. It is

2/4 submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P. by an order dated 10.02.2025, however, granted two weeks' time to the petitioner to surrender failing which law shall take its own course.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the DRI and Customs thus submits that the orders of this Court was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 10.02.2025 had granted two weeks' further time to the petitioner to surrender for seeking regular bail, but then, the petitioner in complete breach of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10.02.2025, instead of surrendering, filed Cr. Misc. No.27896 of 2025 for seeking anticipatory bail. It is submitted that Cr. Misc. No.27896 of 2025 is the second anticipatory bail application which also came to be dismissed for non-prosecution by an order dated 25.04.2025, as no one had appeared on the date when the case was taken up. The learned counsel thus submits that the instant restoration application has been filed seeking restoration of Cr. Misc. No.27896 of 2025 which stood dismissed for nonprosecution by an order dated 25.04.2025. It is thus submitted that when the petitioner had approached the Hon'ble Suprme Court when his earlier anticipatory bail application was rejected

3/4 by an order dated 18.04.2024 in Cr. Misc. No.19763 of 2024 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not interfere with the order of this Court and directed the petitioner to surrender within a period two weeks failing which law shall take its own course, in that event, the petitioner ought not to have moved this court seeking anticipatory bail again by filing the second anticipatory bail application.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner though does not dispute the said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the DRI and Customs, but then, submits that the second anticipatory bail application has been filed on a new ground, but then, is not in a position to make any submission whether the new ground arose subsequent to the order passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No.19763 of 2024 dated 18.04.2024 or the grounds were existing when the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner came to be rejected. Further, also is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the DRI and Customs that the petitioner after the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not surrender.

5. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the DRI and Customs, the Court

4/4 is not inclined to allow the instant restoration application, as such, it stands dismissed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T