Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Durgesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
WITHDRAWN

Holding

The anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn.

Summary

Durgesh Yadav filed an anticipatory bail application in a criminal case (PS Case No. 92 of 2025) pending before the Patna High Court. The petitioner was represented by Advocate Dewanand Tiwari, while the State of Bihar was represented by Advocate Manoj Kumar. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner requested permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application, citing difficulty in continuing. The Court granted the permission to withdraw. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed as withdrawn.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • criminal procedure
  • withdrawal of application

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85600 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2025 Thana- BHORE District- Gopalganj
                 ======================================================
                 Durgesh Yadav S/o Ramakant Yadav Resident of Village - Kalyanpur Tola,
                 Rikhichhapar, P.S.- Bhore, District Gopalganj
                                                                         ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                  ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Dewanand Tiwari, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Manoj Kumar, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   02-02-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of

                   the informant.

                                2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner, after arguing vehemently for some times realizing his

                   difficulty, seeks permission to withdraw the instant anticipatory

                   bail application.

                                3. Permission is accorded.

                                4. Accordingly,         the     instant      anticipatory          bail

                   application is dismissed as withdrawn.


                                                                        (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.