Patna High CourtCR. MISC./82668/2023rejected

Rajeev Kumar @ Rajeev Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

2023-12-15Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82668 of 2023 Arising out of CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41564 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-91 Year-2021 Thana- PANDARAK District- Patna ====================================================== RAJEEV KUMAR @ RAJEEV PASWAN Son of Pravesh Paswan @ Ram Pravesh Paswan R/o vill - Sarhan, P.S. - Pandarak, Dist. - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Syed Ehteshamuddin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 15-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The instant application has been filed for modification of the order dated 08.12.2022 for extension of time for furnishing bail bond in terms of the order passed by this Bench in Cr. Misc. No. 41564 of 2022 and the petitioner was allowed anticipatory bail in connection with Pandarak P.S. Case No. 91 of 2021 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 504, 379 and 506/34 of the IPC.

3. Allegedly, it is a case of assault upon the informant, due to which he sustained injury.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82668 of 2023(2) dt.15-12-2023 2/2 pairvikar of this case of the petitioner could not inform him about the aforesaid order in result thereof, he could not surrender before the Court below.

5. There is a willful and malafide intention of the petitioner that he did not surrender himself before the Court below after granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner misused the privilege of anticipatory bail, this court is not inclined to enlarge him on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. No fresh ground is made out for reconsideration of the regular bail application of the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, this application stands rejected. (Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Arish/- U T