Shivnath Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16501 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2025 Thana- BHAGWANPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Shivnath Paswan Son of Ram Prit Paswan R/o Rusulpur Thrki, Turki, P.S. - Bhagwanpur, District - Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravish Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satya Nand Shukla ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-07-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS.

3. Learned A.P.P. for the State, at the outset, submits that from perusal of the pleading made in the anticipatory bail application, it would manifest that petitioner was given notice under Section 35(3) BNSS as the FIR was instituted with respect to the offences carrying punishment of 7 years and less but then the petitioner did not cooperate in the investigation, it is also submitted that since notice under Section 35(3) BNSS was given to the petitioner, it amply reflects that police did not intend to arrest the petitioner rather wanted the case to be

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16501 of 2026(2) dt.24-07-2026 2/2 investigated, it is thus submitted that a person despite receiving notice chooses not to cooperate in the investigation whether he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to rebut the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. that petitioner received notice under Section 35(3) BNSS and thereafter did not cooperate with the police in the investigation.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikram/- U