Patna High Court

Mukesh Kumar SinghversusThe State Of Bihar

Decided: 12 February 2026
Disposal: DISMISS FOR NON-PROSECUTION
Bench: SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

Holding

The application is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

Mukesh Kumar Singh filed an application before the Patna High Court against the State of Bihar. No counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite repeated notices. The State’s assistant public prosecutor, Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, was present. The court noted the petitioner’s failure to prosecute the matter. Consequently, the judge dismissed the application for want of prosecution. No substantive merits of the petition were considered.

Issues considered

Whether the application can be entertained in the absence of any representative for the petitioner

Subjects

criminal procedure
dismissal for want of prosecution
representation
high court
patna

Judgment

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40145 of 2018
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-221 Year-2013 Thana- CHARPOKHARI District- Bhojpur
                  ======================================================
                  Mukesh Kumar Singh S/o Sudarshan Rai @ Sudarshan Singh, R/o Vill.-
                  Nachap, P.S.- Murar, District- Buxar.

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                  The State of Bihar

                                                         ... ... Opposite Party/s
                  ======================================================
                  Appearance :
                  For the Petitioner/s     :       None
                  For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
                  ======================================================
                  CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
                                        ORAL ORDER

4    12-02-2026                      On repeated calls, no one appears on behalf of the

                    petitioner to press this matter.

                                 2. On the previous occasion i.e. on 28.01.2026, also

                    no one turned up on behalf of the petitioner.

                                 3. However, learned A.P.P. for the State is present.

                                 4. In such view of the matter, this application is

                    dismissed for want of prosecution.



                                               (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-

U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…