This is an oral order where the High Court rejected a criminal miscellaneous application due to the repeated absence of the petitioner's advocate, citing want of prosecution.
Application rejected for want of prosecution
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.11717 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2020 Thana- PRANPUR District- Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. M. BADAR ORAL ORDER
5 25-11-2021 None for the applicant. The learned advocate for the applicant is repeatedly remaining absent. Hence, the application is rejected for want of prosecution.
(A. M. Badar, J)
Ravi/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the application should be allowed in the absence of the petitioner's counsel.
Md Fateh @ Fateh @ Istiyak Md Rauf and others
The State of Bihar
A. M. Badar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
