Patna High CourtCR. MISC./74787/2024dismissed

Tuntun Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-10-18Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74787 of 2024 In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53679 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-257 Year-2018 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Begusarai ====================================================== Tuntun Kumar Son of Late Hare Ram Singh @ Late Hareram Singh villageKapasiya, Ward no. 13, Ps- Begusarai town, Dist- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amit Narayan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Suresh Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-10-2024

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

2. The Court is taking a consistent view of not extending the time of surrender in the event if the accused has not surrendered within the time stipulated in the order by which he was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by an order dated 05.08.2024 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 53679 of 2024 and was directed to surrender within a period of six weeks. It is further submitted that petitioner resides at Chennai and suffered jaundice. It is further submitted that from perusal of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74787 of 2024(2) dt.18-10-2024 2/2 medical report, it would manifest that petitioner started suffering from jaundice on 25.08.2024, on which the learned APP, Mr. Suresh Prasad submits that it absolutely does not stand to reason that petitioner was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by an order dated 05.08.2024 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 53679 of 2024, as such, he could have surrendered before 25.08.2024, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that since petitioner was staying at Chennai, as such, he could not come in time, on which the learned APP submits that the petitioner is moving at his leisure.

4. The modification application is dismissed. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T