Sunil Kumar Paswan @ Sunil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40986 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2019 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali ====================================================== SUNIL KUMAR PASWAN @ SUNIL KUMAR, Son of Talam Paswan Resident of Village - Chehrakala, P.S.- Goraul, (O.P.- Kathara), District - Vaishali at Hajipur.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 102 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. On earlier hearing, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the date of occurrence he was in Banglore and he was not in Bihar particularly in Vaishali district where the occurrence has taken place. This is a case under Section 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code and believing the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, the Telecom Company was directed to trace the mobile phone location of the petitioner. The Telecom Company has cooperated in the matter and it has been submitted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40986 of 2020(10) dt.20-01-2022 2/3 by Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, learned counsel for the Telecom Company that on 19.02.2019 and 20.02.2019 the mobile location of the petitioner is in Bihar particularly in Vaishali district.

From the aforesaid statement of the Telecom Company the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is falsified. This kind of submission by learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the instructions given by the petitioner, is not acceptable. Hence, a cost of Rs.25,000/- is imposed upon the petitioner for misleading the Court.

Heard the parties on the merit of the case.

There is enough evidence of involvement of the petitioner in the present case and therefore, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

The petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within a period of one week from today. If the petitioner does not surrender in the Court below within the aforesaid period of one week, the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali shall take all steps for arresting the petitioner in connection with the present case.

After the surrender/arrest, the regular bail of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40986 of 2020(10) dt.20-01-2022 3/3 petitioner shall be considered by the Court below only after the petitioner deposits the cost of Rs.25,000/- in the Court below, which shall be deposited in the Victim Compensation Fund. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this bail application is dismissed.

Office is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali through FAX or e-mail. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned APP for the State and Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, learned counsel for the Telocom Company, are also directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali through phone or Whatsapp. (Sandeep Kumar, J) pawan/- U T