Patna High CourtCR. MISC./76259/2023dismissed

Madhusudan Yadav @ Masudan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2023-11-10Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76259 of 2023 In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43903 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-767 Year-2022 Thana- BEGUSARAI TOWN District- Begusarai ====================================================== Madhusudan Yadav @ Masudan Yadav Son Of Dashrath Yadav Resident Of Village - Raghunathpur, P.S. - Sahopur, District - Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajkumar Rajesh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-11-2023

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

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by order dated 23.08.2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 43903/2023 with a condition that one of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his father Dashrath Yadav. It is next submitted that petitioner in terms of the order dated 23.08.2023 was directed to surrender before the learned trial court within six weeks.

3. The learned counsel next submits that the present modification application has been filed seeking modification of the condition in the order dated 23.08.2023 in Cr. Misc. No.43903/2023 that the condition by which his father was made

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76259 of 2023(2) dt.10-11-2023 2/2 one of the bailor be removed, as the father of the petitioner had died prior to filing of the anticipatory bail application but inadvertently in Cr. Misc. No.43903/2023 in the description of the petitioner, his father was not shown as late.

4. The Court would have entertained the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner provided the modification application would have been filed within six weeks of the order dated 23.08.2023 in Cr. Misc. No.43903/2023. The Court completely fails to appreciate that if the father of the petitioner had died earlier, this fact was in the knowledge of the petitioner but why the present modification application came to be filed after the period of surrender was over. The Court is not inclined to entertain the modification application.

5. Accordingly, the present modification application is hereby rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T