IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41099 of 2009 SURENDRA YADAV @ SURENDRA GOPE, SON OF VILASH YADAV @ VILASH GOPE, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARUNA, P.S. FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 25.2.2010. Heard Mr. Digambar Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this case by order dated 30.11.2009, while calling for case diary of Fatuha P.S. Case No.313 of 2009, a Bench of this Court also called for a report regarding criminal antecedent of the petitioner from the concerned Superintendent through the Court of A.C.J.M., Patna City. It was also directed that on the date of hearing of this bail petition, the deponent of this case, namely, Deo Sharan Yadav must remain present before the court. The report has been received, which is kept at Flag „B‟. Perused the report. It indicates that besides present case i.e. Fatuha P.S. Case No.313 of 2009, the petitioner was accused atleast in three more cases relating to commission of serious offences. The present case relates to a - 2 - dacoity committed on a high way in which a jeep was stopped and looted at Fatuha Dhoba Pool. During investigation, it has come that accused persons were addressing amongst them with their name and as such petitioner‟s name in the case has come to surface. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has got chequered history and the case relates to road hold up, I am not inclined to grant bail to this petitioner. In compliance with the order dated 30.11.2009, the person, who has sworn affidavit in the petition, namely, Deo Sharan yadav is present in court. In paragraph-8 of the petition, it has been mentioned “that the no criminal case nor bad antecedent against the petitioner save and except this case”. The report, which has been received from the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, falsifies the statement made by Deo Sharan Yadav on oath in a proceeding before this Court and as such it is a fit case in which action may be taken against the deponent. Accordingly, the Registrar General - 3 - N.H./ is directed to lodge a complaint case against the deponent before the concerned court for the offence of swearing false affidavit. With above observation and direction, the petition stands dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)