IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2549 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-242 Year-2021 Thana- RASULPUR District- Saran ====================================================== 1. PAWAN YADAV SON OF LATE PRAMOD YADAV R/O VILLAGE- CHADWA DHALA, P.S.- RASULPUR, DISTRICT- SARAN 2. KHUSHBU KUMARI D/O LATE PRAMOD YADAV R/O VILLAGE- CHADWA DHALA, P.S.- RASULPUR, DISTRICT- SARAN 3. SARITA DEVI D/O LATE PRAMOD YADAV R/O VILLAGE- CHADWA DHALA, P.S.- RASULPUR, DISTRICT- SARAN ... ... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. PUJA KUMARI D/O SHARMA BANSFORE R/O VILLAGE- CHADWA DHALA, P.S.- RASULPUR, DISTRICT- SARAN ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Srivastva For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 4 20-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State, Mr. Binay Krishna. 2. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State, at the outset, submits that the case is of the year 2022 and notices were issued by order dated 23.08.2022 by the then learned Coordinate Bench and interim protection was granted, it is next submitted that thereafter the case was taken up on 29.06.2026 and the appellants were directed to file jointness application since notice was received by Neha Kumari, but it appears that Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2549 of 2022(4) dt.20-07-2026 2/2 till date appellants have not filed jointness application which amply demonstrates that appellants after obtaining stay are moving at their leisure. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that despite his best endeavour the appellants could not be contacted nor appellants ever in these four years contacted him. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the Court is not inclined to entertain the appeal. 5. Thus, the appeal is rejected. vikram/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T