Patna High CourtCR. MISC./91025/2025dismissed

Ajit Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through The Block Supply Officer, Raghopur.

2026-01-28Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91025 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-164 Year-2025 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Ajit Kumar Singh Son of late Ram Suresh Singh Resident of village-Fatehpur, P.O. and P.S. Raghopur, District- Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar through The Block Supply Officer, Raghopur. bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kaushal Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No. 164 of 2025 instituted under Sections 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

3. Cr.WJC No. 1740 of 2025 titled as Ajit Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar & Ors. was filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR. The following order was passed on 28.07.2025, which reads as under:

"Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. The State will file counter affidavit in the present case.

3. List this case on 15.12.2025.

4. During the pendency of the case, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No.164 of 2025."

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91025 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026 2/2

4. From perusal of the order dated 28.07.2025, it appears that it was directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No. 164 of 2025. Thereafter, the petitioner was being harassed by the Raghopur Police, therefore, he has preferred anticipatory bail application before the District Court which has been rejected and now he is before this Court.

5. It is surprising that the petitioner even after getting an interim order from this Court has chosen to file an anticipatory bail petition in the District Court as well as in this Court. The petitioner should have filed a contempt proceeding in this Court against the guilty official(s) who were harassing the petitioner.

6. In these circumstances, this application is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.

7. If the petitioner has any grievance, he may file an application for initiating contempt proceeding against the guilty official(s).

(Sandeep Kumar, J) P. Kumar U T