Aman Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 754 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 28635 of 2019
                               Arising out of
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 45363 of 2014
      Arising Out of PS Case No.-228 Year-2011 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
                                    District- Muzaffarpur
     ======================================================

Aman Kumar, aged about 37 years, Gender-Male, Son of Parmanand Singh, Resident of Village- Nawada, PS- Pakridayal, District- East Champaran (Motihari).

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Madhuresh Kumar, aged about 40 years, Gender-Male, Son of Mohan Singh, Resident of Village- Sadbhavananagar, Nayatola, PS- Kazimohamadpur, District- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aditya Narain Singh, Advocate with Mr. Ritesh Kumar Narain Singh, Advocate For the State : Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 08-02-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Aditya Narain Singh along with Mr. Ritesh

Kumar Narain Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr.

Kumar Uday Pratap, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

(hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

3. The petitioner has moved the Court seeking recall of

order dated 09.04.2019 by which Cr. Misc. No. 45363 of 2014,

was dismissed as it was not pressed by learned counsel for the

petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28635 of 2019 dt.08-02-2021

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

though the Court has recorded that twice earlier in the case time

had been granted, it was the duty of learned counsel to be present

in the said case and if at all required, adjournment should have

been taken in the other case, for the reason that twice time had

been granted due to non-appearance of learned counsel for the

petitioner, there was fault on his part and prayed that he may be

excused one time and that such position shall not be repeated in

future.

5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, only in the

larger interest of justice, the Court is interfering in the matter.

6. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

7. Order dated 09.04.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No.

45363 of 2014, is recalled and the said case stands restored to its

original file and number.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T