← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./53678/2025withdrawn

Dinesh Rai v. The State Of Bihar

2025-08-20Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53678 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-348 Year-2022 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna ====================================================== Dinesh Rai S/o Sri Sipahi Rai R/o - Bijauli, P.S - Panapur, District - Saran At present owner of M/S Ganesh Trader, Organix Fertilizer, situated at Rajapatti Tola, P.S. - Mashrakh, District - Saran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raj Krishna Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-08-2025

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

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 348 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

3. The learned APP, at the outset, submits that the offences for which the instant FIR has been instituted, carries punishment of seven years and less. It is next submitted that law is well settled that in such cases, the police does not arrest automatically, rather resorts to a procedure as envisaged under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that there is no pleading in the anticipatory bail application that on what basis the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53678 of 2025(2) dt.20-08-2025 2/2 petitioner is apprehending his arrest when it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that till date no notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C has been issued.

4. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application with liberty to file afresh, if need arises.

5. Permission is accorded.

6. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T