IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26026 of 2008 OM PRAKASH SHARMA @ CHUNNU SHARMA, Son of phulendra Sharma, resident of village-Shakti Bigh, P.S. Alipur, District- Gaya. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 22.10.2008 The F.I.R. was lodged under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown with allegation against the holder of mobile no.9835610279 and it was alleged that informant, who is a doctor had received 15 calls from that mobile number asking him (informant) to contact the criminal Bindu Singh in Buxar jail and pay extortion money to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not the owner of the mobile phone. It is also submitted that the I.O. found that mobile phone was in the name of a different person named Harihar Kumar. Mr. S. R. Haque, the learned A.P.P. refers para-64 of the case diary and points out that the I.O. verified and found that the application form for obtaining sim card was in the name of a different person Harihar Kumar and identity card issued by Election Commission was also accompanying the application form but in fact the photograph of the petitioner as pasted on the application form was that of the petitioner himself. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that somebody else using the photograph of the petitioner had obtained the mobile connection in a different name utilizing the identity card of the different person. The learned A.P.P. submits that the form contains the photograph of the petitioner which indicates is complicity in way that - 2 - he himself had obtained the connection in the name of a different person. In the facts and circumstances, I do not feel inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present. Hence, prayer is refused. However, if so advised, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after completion of two years of incarceration from the date of remand in the case. (C.M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-