IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73027 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-268 Year-2023 Thana- MADHUBANI COMPLAINT CASE District- Madhubani ====================================================== Rajan Kumar S/o- Arjun Kumar Village- Parshauni ward no 8, Ps- Bisfi, Dist- Madhubani, at present add 202,11F, india bulls grand marigold come operative navi society Ltd, kon, panvel navi mumbai, Maharashtra ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Chinki Karn W/o- Rajan Kumar, D/o- Arun Kumar Lal Karn @ Arun Kumar Village- Po- Muraitha Ps- Jale Dist- Darbhanga ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sangeeta Sharma, APP For the Informant : Mr. Mayashankar, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 4 22-03-2025 1. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner Shri Pushkar Narayan Shahi, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2. 2. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance by an order dated 04.11.2023 under Sections 379, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Madhubani (Benipatti) Complaint Case No.268/2023, in which, the petitioner was an accused. It is further submitted that petitioner had challenged the order of cognizance by filing revision before the learned District Judge, Madhubani by filing Revision Case No.68/2024 and the same came to be rejected by an order dated 11.07.2024. It is next submitted that thereafter the petitioner moved this Court by filing Cr. Misc. No.75068/2024. It is further submitted that in Cr. Misc. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73027 of 2024(4) dt.22-03-2025 2/2 No.75068/2024 inadvertently only the order of cognizance was challenged but subsequently an I.A. being I.A. No.1/2024 was filed seeking quashing of the revisional order also. It is next submitted that in Cr. Misc. No.75068/2024, the further proceeding before the learned trial court has been stayed by an order dated 19.12.2024, as such, it is submitted that for the present the petitioner does not have any apprehension of arrest. It is also submitted that since the proceeding before the learned trial court has been stayed, as such, even if the provisional anticipatory bail order is confirmed then also no useful purpose would be served and if the provisional anticipatory bail order is recalled then also the petitioner would not be arrested, as the proceeding before the learned trial court is stayed. 3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that since the proceeding before the learned trial court has been stayed, as such, the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application with liberty to file afresh if need arises. 4. Permission is accorded. amit/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T