Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61340 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-233 Year-2023 Thana- SONBERSA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Paswan S/o Chhotelal Paswan R/o vill - Bandarjhula, P.s.- Sonbasa, Distt.- Sitamarhi, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Uday Kumar, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umeshanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 17-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 233 of 2023, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 34 of the IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution, in short, as per the informant is that the marriage of his sister namely, Samrool Khatoon was solemnized with one Md. Noore Alam Ansari in the year 2017. She has two children. His brother-in-law lives outside in connection with his livelihood. On 19.7.2023 at 4.00 A.M., his sister had gone outside for defecation but she did not return. On search, the informant came to know that the accused persons have kidnapped his sister with cash Rs. 25,000/- and jewellery.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61340 of 2025(3) dt.17-01-2026 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to dirty local politics. Both the parties are covillagers and there is money dispute between them. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged occurrence. He further submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the serious allegation levelled against the petitioner that he along with others had kidnapped the sister of the informant with Rs. 25,000/- and jewellery . In 164 statement of the victim, the victim has stated that the petitioner was involved in her kidnapping and was demanding ransom, failing which the petitioner threatened to kill victim's brother. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7.

Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

(Alok Kumar Sinha, J) kiran/- U T