High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Kailash Bihari Pandey & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 12 September, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Kailash Bihari Pandey & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 12 September, 2011
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                           Criminal Miscellaneous No.40718 of 2008
                  1. Kailash Bihari Pandey, son of Late Brij Bihari Pandey.
                  2. Shambhu Nath Pandey, son of Late Baman Pandey.
                  3. Mohan Pandey, son of Late Kedar Pandey.
                  4. Bhupendra Kumar Pandey, son of Shambhu Nath
                     Pandey.
                  5. Harendra Kumar Pandey, son of Shambhu Nath Pandey.
                  6. Arbind Kumar Pandey, son of Shambhu Nath Pandey.
                     All are resident of Village-Garkha, P.O. and Police
                     Station-Garkha, District-Saran (Chapra).
                     .......................................................Petitioners.

                                             Versus

                   1. The State Of Bihar.
                   2. Amar Nath Pandey, son of Late Damodar Pandey,
                      resident of village-Garkha, P.O. and Police Station-
                      Garkha, District-Saran.
                      ..............................................Opposite Parties.

                                 ----------------------------------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Gyan Prakash, Advocate.
For the State : Mrs. Pronoti Singh, A.P.P.

————————————-

4. 12.9.2011. After some argument, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioners submits that since the impugned

order dated 30.4.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional

Magistrate, Chapra, in Case No.1492 of 2006 relates for the

execution of the interim bond of 2000/- with two sureties of

the like amount each for a period of six months in a

proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure and the period of which has already expired much
2

before, this application has become infructuous.

In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the

petitioners prays for permission to withdraw this application.

Permission is accorded.

This application is dismissed as withdrawn.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)

P.S.