Allowed

Dinesh Prasad Gupta v. the Union of India

Patna HC7 Dec 2021CR. MISC./19355/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought restoration of an anticipatory bail petition dismissed for default due to non-filing of a supplementary affidavit. The Court set aside the earlier order and restored the matter, dismissing the State's objection regarding inordinate delay.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 18.7.2019 is set aside, Cr. Misc. No. 44378 of 2019 is restored, and a cost of Rs. 5000/- is payable to the Bihar State Legal Services Authority.

Dinesh Prasad Gupta Vs the Union of India — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19355 of 2020

¶2

¶3

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44378 of 2019

¶4

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2016 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Patna

¶5

======================================================

¶6

DINESH PRASAD GUPTA Son of Ramchandra Sao Resident of Pokharpur, P.S.- Giriyak, District- Nalanda- 803115.

¶7

... ... Petitioner/s

¶8

Versus

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA India.

¶10

The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement Govt. of Inda, 1st Floor, Chandpura Palace, Bank Road, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna- 800001.

¶11

District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Nalanda. Nalanda.

¶12

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Krishna Mohan Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.S.D.Sanjay(Adsg) For the BFSC : Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriya, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

2 07-12-2021

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

¶17

he has filed anticipatory bail petition in Cr. Misc. No. 44378 of 2019 which was dismissed for default by this Court for noncompliance of the pre-emptory order.

¶18

He has mentioned in Paragraph-5 of the petition that petitioner is not responsible for the lapse nor the intention of the petitioner was mala fide.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner had removed defects but the supplementary affidavit to this has not filed

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19355 of 2020(2) dt.07-12-2021 2/2

¶21

which now is necessary due to judicial order. There is no intention of delay at all.

¶22

Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer by submitting that this miscellaneous application for restoration has been filed after inordinate delay.

¶23

Considering the facts and circumstances, the order dated 18.7.2019 is set aside and the criminal miscellaneous No. 44378 of 2019 is restored to its original number at the cost of Rs. 5000/- payable to the Bihar State Legal Services Authority.

¶24

With these observations, this restoration petition is

¶25

allowed.

¶26

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J)

¶27

SONALI/-

¶28

U T

Dinesh Prasad Gupta v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Prasad Gupta v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajeet Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Guddu Alam @ Samir Alam Vs the State of Bihar

Guddu Dom @ Guddu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Shyamanand Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Amit Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Shalendra Kumar @ Shailendra Singh @ Shailendra Kumar Sharma ( Mukesh Kumar ) Vs The State of Bihar