In an oral order arising from a PS case, the single judge permitted the withdrawal of a petition filed by two women after their counsel submitted that they had been taken into custody, rendering the application infructuous.
Permission granted to withdraw the application; appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.78117 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-196 Year-2018 Thana- KATIHAR MUFFASIL District- Katihar
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sri Ajay Kumar Jha ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER
4 06-02-2019
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners
has submitted that both the petitioners during pendency of the application has been taken into custody, as such, this application has become infructuous and he may be permitted to withdraw the same.
Permission is accorded.
This application is accordingly dismissed as
withdrawn having become infructuous.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J)
sunilkumar/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition should be allowed to be withdrawn after petitioners were taken into custody.
Whether the application should be afforded permission to withdraw and dismissed as withdrawn.
Veena Kumari
Masomat Renu
The State of Bihar
Vinod Kumar Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
