IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37432 of 2025 In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48247 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-322 Year-2021 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur ====================================================== Umesh Singh Son Of Bishambhar Singh Vill -mahisi Ward No 5 Ps -bibhutipur District- Samastipur Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shashank Shekhar Kunwar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Madhuri Lata ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 13-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The present application has been filed for modification of the order dated 08.11.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 48247/2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 08.11.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 48247/2023 in connection with Complaint Case No. 322/2021 in which the petitioner was directed to remain physically present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bond of the petitioner is liable to be cancelled but unfortunately on 18.06.2024, the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37432 of 2025(2) dt.13-08-2025 2/2 petitioner met with an accident in which his legs got fractured. As per Annexure-P5, 06.12.2024, the petitioner was advised for a complete bed-rest for a period of eight months. Thereafter, the condition of the petitioner became worse that he requires the help of four persons to move in the house. So, the petitioner seeks exemption from personally appearing before the learned court of Judicial Magistrate First Class in connection with Complaint Case No. 322/2021. Learned A.P.P. for the State has submitted that the documents produced on behalf of the petitioner appears to be false. It is further submitted that the petitioner has fracture injury on his legs so he should be treated by an Orthopedist but as per Annexure 4 and 5 the petitioner's treatment is being done by a Spine Surgeon which creates doubt. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the finding substance in the contention of learned counsel for the State, this Court is not inclined to allow the present modification application filed by learned counsel for the petitioner and the same is rejected. atul/- (Chandra Prakash Singh, J) U T