Santosh Kumar Yadav @ Santosh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68270 of 2024 In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24291 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2022 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Araria ====================================================== Santosh Kumar Yadav @ Santosh Yadav Son of Balram Yadav R/o VillageKankhudia, Ward No. 04, P.S.- Palasi, District- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Suniti Purnima, Wife of Santosh Kumar Yadav, D/O Raj Kumar Rahi Advocate. R/o Village- Jay Prakash Nagar, Ward No. 07, P.S.- Araria, District- Araria ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms.Kanchan Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rabindra Kumar- A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-09-2024

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

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had moved this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.24291 of 2024 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 15.04.2024 in terms of the order dated 13.02.2024 in Cr. Misc. No.3536 of 2024 (Naushad Ansari vs. the State of Bihar).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in absence of instructions, an important fact could not be brought to the notice of the Court when Cr. Misc. No.24291 of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68270 of 2024(2) dt.13-09-2024 2/2 2024 was taken up on 15.04.2024 that already charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner. It is further submitted that had the said fact been brought to the notice of the Court, either the Court would have granted the privilege of anticipatory bail or would have rejected the application. It is also submitted that the dispute is completely matrimonial, as such, instant modification application has been filed for modifying the order dated 15.04.2024 in Cr. Misc. No.24291 of 2024.

4. The learned A.P.P. Sri Rabindra Kumar opposes the modification application and submits that there is no infirmity in the order dated 15.04.2024 and if correct facts was not brought to the notice of the Court, for that the petitioner can again move this Court seeking anticipatory bail, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present modification application with the liberty aforesaid.

5. Permission is accorded.

6. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T