Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 24476 (PAT)

Suryadeo Kumar @ Surajdeo Kumar v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

CR. MISC./45422/2026 · 2026-07-14

Satyavrat Verma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45422 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-596 Year-2009 Thana- NAWADAH COMPLAINT CASE District- Nawada ====================================================== Suryadeo Kumar @ Surajdeo Kumar S/O Ramnandan Chauhan @ Ramnandan Prasad R/O Vill.- Birakumar, Bela, P.s.- Islampur, Dist.- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Kaushalya Devi @ Kailasiya Devi W/O Suryadeo Kumar @ Surajdeo Kumar, D/O Ganesh Chauhan R/O Vill.- Birakumar, Bela, P.s.- Islampur, Dist.- Nalanda. At Present R/O Budhan Bigha, P.s.- Pakaribarawan, Dist.- Nawada, Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shankar Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 14-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned APP for the State, at the outset, submits that the case is of the year 2009 and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has already been issued in the year 2026, but then prior to issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C., bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant were also issued, but then petitioner never bothered to appear and 17 years after filing Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45422 of 2026(2) dt.14-07-2026 2/2 of the complaint, the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail, which amply demonstrates that petitioner has scant regard for the law. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to rebut the submissions made by the learned APP for the State. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who is husband. 6. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected. Rishabh/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T