Md. Yunus v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45071 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2018 Thana- BANGARA District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.

MD. YUNUS Son of Mahtab Ali Resident of Kidwai Nagar, Purani Bazar, Kasiya Bharwari, Kaushambi, Uttar Pradesh.

2.

Bablu Singh Son of Raja Ram Singh Resident of Mohalla-Damodar Colony, Hajipur, P.S.-Hajipur Sadar, District-Vaishali. 3.

Md. Irfan Son of Md. Isbat Resident of Village-Phulwarisharif, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, District-Patna.

4.

Manoj Kumar Son of Janak Prasad Kushwaha Resident of Village-Bhanpur, P.S.-Baligaon, District-Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Pramod Kumar Rakesh Son of Late Ramashish Singh Resident of VillageBarbatta, P.S.-Mushari Gharari, District-Samastipur. 3.

Jai Narayan Singh Son of Late Jageshwar Singh Resident of VillageSadipur, P.S.-Bangra High Way, District-Samastipur. 4.

The Officer-in-charge of National High Way Police Station, Bangara, District-Samastipur. Samastipur 5.

The Inspector, Police Station-Tajpur Circle. Tajpur (Bihar) 6.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samastipur Sadar. Samastipur 7.

The Superintendent of Police, Samastipur. Samastipur. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-08-2025 This case was heard on several occasions and status report was directed to be filed by 10.07.2025. Thereafter again on 05.08.2025 at the request of the petitioners, the matter was adjourned for further two weeks for filing certified copy of the entire order sheet from the Trial Court.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45071 of 2019(7) dt.19-08-2025 2/2

2. Today no one has tendered appearance on behalf of the petitioners. The record reveals that the order dated 05.08.2025 has not been complied with. In view of the nature of reliefs sought for in the present application filed under Section 482 CrPC, I don't find that the petitioners have made out a case for interference.

3. Accordingly, the present quashing application stands dismissed.

(Purnendu Singh, J) Ashishsingh/- U T