Patna High Court

Kaushal KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 1 May 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SONI SHRIVASTAVA

Holding

The application for restoration was dismissed as the earlier dismissal was not for non‑prosecution but merely a refusal to grant bail, leaving no ground for restoration.

Summary

Petitioner Kaushal Kumar filed an application seeking restoration of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 75489 of 2025, which had been dismissed for default on 12 January 2026. The High Court examined the dismissal order and held that it was not a dismissal for non‑prosecution but merely a refusal to grant bail, directing the petitioner only to file a representation before the investigating officer, following Naushad Ansari v. State of Bihar. Consequently, the Court found no basis to restore the dismissed proceeding. The application was therefore dismissed and the matter disposed. The petitioner was advised to cooperate with the investigating agency.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal miscellaneous proceeding dismissed for default can be restored when the dismissal is not for non‑prosecution.
Whether the refusal to grant bail, coupled with an opportunity to file a representation before the investigating officer, precludes restoration of the case.

Subjects

criminal procedure
restoration of dismissed case
bail
default dismissal
investigating officer

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22641 of 2026
                                              In
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75489 of 2025
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-108 Year-2025 Thana- PARAIYA District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Kaushal Kumar S/O Shri Vashishtha Singh R/O Vill.- Baigoman, Post-
                 Punakala, P.S.- Paraiya, Dist.- Gaya.

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar Patna
           2.    Indradeo Yadav S/o Keshwar Yadav R/O-Village Baigoman, Post Punakala,
                 P.S. Paraiya, District - Gaya (Bihar)
           3.    Sushma Devi W/o Keshav Sao R/O-Village Ajmatganj, P.S. Paraiya,
                 District- Gaya (Bihar)
           4.    Vishwajeet Kumar S/o Ramashish Yadav R/O- Village Baigoman, Post-
                 Punakala, P.S.- Paraiya, District - Gaya (Bihar)
           5.    Munni Kumari W/o Sunil Kumar R/O- Village Paraiya Khurd, P.S. -Paraiya,
                 District- Gaya (Bihar)
           6.    Basanti Devi W/o Krishna Paswan R/O- Village - Ajmatganj, P.S. - Paraiya,
                 District - Gaya (Bihar)
           7.    Satyendra Singh S/o Late Ram Lagan Singh R/O-Village - Baigoman, Post-
                 Punakala, P.S. - Paraiya, District - Gaya (Bihar)
           8.    Mithlesh Yadav S/o Sahdeo Yadav R/O Village - Punakala Tola- Lorhar,
                 P.S.- Paraiya, District - Gaya (Bihar)
           9.    Manoj Kumar Sinha Licensed Deed Writer (L.N. 161/02)

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Ms. Preeti Pundir, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   01-05-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The present application has been filed for restoring

                   the Cr. Misc. No.75489 of 2025 which according to the

                   petitioner was dismissed for default on 12.01.2026.
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22641 of 2026(5) dt.01-05-2026
                                                          2/2




                                        3. Upon looking at the order dated 12.01.2026, this

                        Court finds that the application was not dismissed for non-

                        prosecution rather the Court did not see any reason to interfere

                        with the order of the Court below for the reason that by the said

                        order, the Court had not granted bail to the petitioner rather had

                        only given an opportunity to file a representation before the

                        Investigating Officer of the case in view of the case of Naushad

                        Ansari vs. The State of Bihar (Cr. Misc. no.3536 of 2024).

                                        4. In such view of the matter, there is no question of

                        restoring the application and the application is, thus, dismissed.

                                        5. It goes without saying that the petitioner in the

                        present application can always approach the Investigating

                        agency in order to apprise him about facts and co-operating in

                        the investigation.

                                     6. Accordingly, this application is disposed of.



                                                  (Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-

U         T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…