Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 29142 (PAT)

Ajit Kumar Gupta v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./16245/2026 · 2026-08-20

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.16245 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-918 Year-2024 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - PATNA CITY District- Patna ====================================================== Ajit Kumar Gupta son of Late Arun Kumar Gupta Resident of Mohalla- Nitya Nand Ka Kuan, Lodi Katra, Police Station- Khajekalan, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Smt. Neha Soni Wife of Ajit Kumar Gupta Resident of Village - Lodi Katra, Near Sai Mandir Ps- Khajekalan, Dist- Patna, At present Resident of Khajekalan, Kamgar Gali, Ps- Khejakalan, Dist- Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Krishna Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 7 20-08-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was taken up on 29.07.2026, when it was submitted that parties are trying to settle the issue, thus, two weeks’ time was sought, further the petitioner was also directed to file a jointness application thereafter the case was taken up on 13.08.2026, when the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner sought a week’s time for filing a jointness application and a supplementary affidavit for bringing the compromise petition on record. 3. Today, when the case is taken up, neither jointness Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16245 of 2026(7) dt.20-08-2026 2/2 application is filed nor the compromise petition has been brought on record, rather the learned counsel submits that parties have compromised, as such, seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application with liberty to the petitioner to surrender and seek regular bail based on compromise. 4. Permission is accorded. 5. It is made clear that if the petitioner surrenders and seeks regular bail and there is a compromise petition on record, in that event the learned Trial Court shall consider and dispose of the case of the petitioner on the same day, but if the compromise petition is not on record, in that event the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to consider the case of the petitioner on its own merit. 6. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid. Rishabh/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T