Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4246 (PAT)

Triveni Yadav @ Triveni Kumar v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./29099/2026 · 2026-05-01

Anil Kumar Sinha

Criminal Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29099 of 2026 In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4474 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2016 Thana- JAMALPUR District- Darbhanga ====================================================== 1. Triveni Yadav @ Triveni Kumar son of Babu Saheb Yadav Resident of Village -Kuvaul ps -Jamalpur Dist- Darbhanga 2. Babban yadav @ Babban Kumar yadav @ Babban Yadav Son of Babu Saheb yadav Resident of Village -Kuvaul ps -Jamalpur Dist- Darbhanga 3. Dinesh yadav @ Dinesh Kumar Ray Son of Soti lal Yadav Resident of Village -Kuvaul ps -Jamalpur Dist- Darbhanga 4. Sunil yadav @ Sunil Kumar son of Babu Narayan yadav Resident of Village -Kuvaul ps -Jamalpur Dist- Darbhanga 5. Ranjeet Yadav @ Ranjit yadav Son of Sukmar Yadav Resident of Village -Kuvaul ps -Jamalpur Dist- Darbhanga 6. Teyab Nadab @ Md. Tayeb @ Teyab Nadaf Son of Kailu Nadaf Resident of Village -Kuvaul ps -Jamalpur Dist- Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar bihar 2. Bishnudeo Paswan Son of Sahdeo Paswan Resident of Village -Kuvaul ps -Jamalpur Dist- Darbhanga ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ugranath Mallik For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mohammad Sufyan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 01-05-2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present application has been filed for restoration of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 4474 of 2021 which got dismissed due to non compliance of peremptory order dated 28.11.2024. 3. Mr. Ugranath Mallilk, learned counsel for the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29099 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026 2/2 appellants submits that earlier counsel could not remove the defects pointed out by the office as by that point of time he had left practice and performed marriage and shifted to New Delhi. 4. The peremptory order was to be complied within four weeks, but the appellants failed to comply the same. Even, restoration application has been filed after two years. 5. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to allow this application. The same is rejected. praful/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) U