Jai Kumar Shrivastava @ Kumar Jay @ Kumar Jai @ Jaykumar Shreevastav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69126 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Jai Kumar Shrivastava @ Kumar Jay @ Kumar Jai @ Jaykumar Shreevastav Son of Sri Paras Nath Prasad Resident of Progressive Colony, Bhutnath Link Road, P.S. - Agamkuan, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Smt. Alpna Kumari Wife of Jai Kumar Shrivastava @ Kumar Jay @ Kumar Jai @ Jaykumar Shreevastav Daughter of Sri Amrendra Kumar, Resident of A/p New Colony, Shankar Puri, Ward No.30, Parab Pokhar, Shankar Puri, P.S. - Kazi Mohammadpur, District - Muzaffarpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jai Prakash Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Pronoti Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-01-2025

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No.2 Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.19/2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2 at the outset submits that the offences for which the instant F.I.R. has been instituted against the petitioner carries a punishment of 7 years and less and as such the petitioner in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69126 of 2024(3) dt.29-01-2025 2/2 pursuance of the order dated 13.02.2024 in Cr. Misc. No.3536/2024 (Naushad Ansari vs. State of Bihar) has been issued notice under Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C. but still has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail. The said submission of the learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 is not rebutted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner rather it is submitted that the notice issued under Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C. is annexed as Annexure-3 to the anticipatory bail application.

4. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner realizing his difficulty seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.

5. Permission is accorded.

6. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is dismissed as withdrawn.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T