Birendra Sharma @ Virendra Sharma v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Home Deptt., Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1690 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-430 Year-2018 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR SADAR DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.

BIRENDRA SHARMA @ VIRENDRA SHARMA Son of Late Ram Baran Thakur @ Ram Manohar Thakur Resident of Village - Jagarnath Pathai, P.S.- Sadar, Distt - Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

2.

Surendra Sharma @ Surendra Thakur Son of Late Ram Baran Thakur @ Ram Manohar Thakur Resident of Village - Jagarnath Pathai, P.S.- Sadar, Distt - Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Home Deptt., Patna Bihar.

2.

Jyoti Kumari D/o Binod Sharma Resident of Village - Jagarnath Pathai, P.S.- Sadar, Distt - Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-06-2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This application is filed for quashing of order dated 20/02/2019 passed in A.B.P. No. 46/2019 in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 430/2018 registered under sections 448, 341, 504, 323, 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereby and whereunder learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur has review the order dated 20/02/2019 passed in A.B.P. No. 46/2019. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that they were granted anticipatory bail on 14.02.2019 pursuant to the grant of bail he furnished his bail bond on 20.02.2019

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1690 of 2019(5) dt.20-06-2023 2/2 another order was received by the court concerned from the District Judge, Muzaffarpur that due to typographical error the earlier anticipatory bail order was passed and the same may be treated to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that once the anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners it could have been recalled only after issuance of notice and after hearing the petitioners. The impugned order dated 20.02.2019 without hearing the petitioners the same is set aside, the petitioners will remain on the bail bond executed earlier.

Accordingly, this application is disposed of. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Ranjeet/- U T