Patna High Court
Rahul Kumar Singh @ Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- D.F.D. FOR NON APPEARANCE
Holding
The anticipatory bail application was dismissed due to the petitioner's failure to appear and prosecute the application.
Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Kumar Singh, filed an anticipatory bail application in a matrimonial dispute where he claimed interim protection. The petitioner failed to appear before the court despite repeated calls, while counsel for the opposite parties were present. The counsel for the second opposite party argued that the case was taken up on 01-09-2025 and that the petitioner had sought time to rectify procedural defects, but no representation was made on his behalf. The court noted the petitioner’s non‑appearance and held that without prosecution, the anticipatory bail could not be entertained. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of a petitioner's non‑appearance on an anticipatory bail application?
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- non‑appearance
- criminal procedure
- matrimonial dispute
- interim protection
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54809 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-600 Year-2021 Thana- KHAGARIA COMPALINT CASE
District- Khagaria
======================================================
Rahul Kumar Singh @ Rahul Kumar S/O Rajendra Prasad Singh R/O Village-
Gokhul Nagar, Bishnupur, Sadipur Diara, P.S- Balia, Distt.- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rupam Kumari @ Rupam Singh W/O Rahul Kumar Singh @ Rahul Kumar
S/O Rajendra Prasad Singh, R/O Village- Rajdham, P.S- Maheshkhunt,
Distt.- Khagaria.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : None
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh- A.P.P.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 15-09-2025 1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner on
repeated calls.
2. Learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel for the
complainant are present.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
opposite party no.2 submits that the case was taken up on
01.09.2025, when the petitioner has sought a week’s time for
removing the defects as pointed out by the office. Further, it was
also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the dispute is
matrimonial and the petitioner is the husband, as such, the Court
had granted interim protection. It is submitted that till date, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54809 of 2025(3) dt.15-09-2025
2/2
defects as pointed out by the office has not been removed by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the
petitioner is enjoying the interim protection.
4. Since no one appears on behalf of the petitioner, as
such, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed for non-
prosecution.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.