Shayam Sundar Jha @ Shyam Sundar Jha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50770 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-797 Year-2008 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur ====================================================== Shayam Sundar Jha @ Shyam Sundar Jha S/O Ramdev Jha R/O VillageNajipur, P.S.- Ujiyarpur, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Shri Pashupati S/o Late Ramdev R/O Vill.- Shibutole, P.s.- Bachabara, Dist.- Begusarai ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Pramod Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Jai Narain Thakur ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-08-2025 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 797 of 2008, wherein cognizance has been taken under Sections 323, 504, 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the allegation set forth in the complaint is highly improbable, and in fact, no such occurrence has taken place. It is further contended that the occurrence took place on 25.03.2004 and the complaint case came to be filed on 16.06.2008, much after the period of four years and three months only in order to put pressure on the petitioner. He further submits that at no point of time any notice
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50770 of 2025(2) dt.12-08-2025 2/2 or summon has ever been served on the petitioner and, as such, he was not acquainted with the pendency of the complaint case.
4. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State submits that admittedly the cognizance was taken in the year 2011 and the petitioner approached this Court after a delay of 13 years and on this score alone the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy.
5. Having considered the submissions and taking note of the delay in filing of the present application, this Court is not acceded to the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the same stands rejected.
6. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach before the court concerned and seek regular bail. (Harish Kumar, J) Anjani/- U T