Patna High Court
Ajay PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that the petitioner’s phone activity at the relevant time prima facie links him to the alleged offence, justifying the rejection of anticipatory bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Ajay Paswan, was implicated in a FIR (Kudra P.S. Case No. 273 of 2025) for alleged involvement in an attack on a police constable, alleged under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution relied on the informant’s testimony and phone‑record evidence showing the petitioner’s mobile was active around the time of the incident. The petitioner contended he was not present at the scene and was falsely implicated due to a loan dispute. The court examined the phone‑record logs and found them sufficient to prima facie support the informant’s allegation. Consequently, the court rejected the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application and disposed of the interlocutory application.
Issues considered
- What is the relevance of the petitioner’s phone‑record activity in establishing his presence at the scene?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- phone records
- false implication
- criminal procedure
- Arms Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66675 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-273 Year-2025 Thana- KUDRA District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Ajay Paswan S/o Yamuna Paswan R/o Village- Majhiyawa, Khajura, P.S.-
Belauv, District- Bhabhua
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Akanksha Verma, Advocate
: Mr. Arvind Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
: Mr. Chandra Shekhar Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Shivjee Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
representing the State as also learned counsel representing the
Informant.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Kudra P.S. Case No. 273 of 2025 registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and section 27 of the Arms Act, lodged
on 15.06.2025 by the informant Sarita Kumari.
3. As per the prosecution story, the lady who is a
Police Constable posted in Supaul on 15.06.2025 at 4:15 AM
was going to Kudra Railway Station to take the Bhabhua-Patna
Intersity Express on a motorcycle when two person on a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66675 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
motorcycle opened fire causing injury to her. She made
allegation against this petitioner that some loan was taken for
which she was threatened with dire consequences a day before
incident. The lady was shifted to trauma centre at Banaras
Hindu University, Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh). This led to the
F.I.R..
4. The contention of the petitioner through learned
counsel is that he was not at the place of occurrence nor is the
assailant but has been wrongly implicated only because he
asked for the return of the loan amount.
5. The matter was earlier heard on 25.09.2025 and
considering the insistence of the petitioner that he was not at the
place of occurrence whereas the informant case was that he
served as a liner, the case diary was called for.
6. Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned APP representing the
State and he has taken this Court to paragraph nos. 9 and 12 of
the case diary to show that in the night of
14.06.2025/15.06.2025, the phone number of the petitioner was
active from 2:07 AM till 6:43 AM with a particular number
including just before the occurrence took place (4:15 AM)
inasmuch as his phone was active at 4:12 AM for 77 seconds
and 4:23 AM for 266 seconds. The injured is a Police Constable,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66675 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
the assailant opened fire when she was going on her duty, she
alleged the role of the petitioner, the case diary prima facie
accept the allegation made by the informant.
7. In that background, it would be appropriate that the
petitioner seek bail, the anticipatory bail application stands
rejected.
8. Interlocutory Application if any, stands disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U T
Checking your session…