{"id":114689,"date":"2010-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010"},"modified":"2015-12-16T04:49:25","modified_gmt":"2015-12-15T23:19:25","slug":"santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Santlal Paswan vs State Of Bihar on 15 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Santlal Paswan vs State Of Bihar on 15 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Rakesh Kumar<\/div>\n
                CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30840 OF 2002\n                                ----\n<\/pre>\n
              In the matter of an application under Section
\n              482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.\n<\/p>\n
                                —-\n<\/p>\n
            SANTLAL PASWAN SON OF DEHAL PASWAN, RESIDENT OF
\n            VILLAGE BISHANPUR KAWA, POLICE STATION BALIGAON,
\n            DISTRICT VAISHALI.\n<\/p>\n
                  ...                ...    PETITIONER.\n                               Versus\n            THE STATE OF BIHAR        ...   OPPOSITE PARTY.\n                                ----\n<\/pre>\n
            For the Petitioner   : M\/S Arun Kumar, Adv.\n<\/p>\n
                                        Md.Hussamuddin Azad,Adv.\n<\/p>\n
            For the State        : Mrs.Indu Bala Pandey,A.P.P.\n<\/p>\n
                                —-\n<\/p>\n
                            P R E S E N T<\/p>\n
                  THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR\n<\/p>\n
                                 —-\n<\/p>\n
Rakesh Kumar,J.               The     sole     petitioner,          while    invoking<\/p>\n
                  inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section<\/p>\n
                  482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed<\/p>\n
                  for quashing of an order dated 22.3.1999 passed<\/p>\n
                  by   the    Chief       Judicial    Magistrate,         Vaishali    in<\/p>\n
                  Trial No.645 of 1999 arising out of Baligaon P.S.<\/p>\n
                  Case    No.14      of    1998.     By    the     said   order,     the<\/p>\n
                  learned         Magistrate       has     taken       cognizance     of<\/p>\n
                  offence under Sections 324, 326, 302\/34 of the<\/p>\n
                  Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
                              2. Short fact of the case is that on the<\/p>\n
                  basis      of    fardbeyan    of       one    Ganaur    Paswan,     an<\/p>\n
                  F.I.R. vide Baligaon P.S. Case No.14 of 1998 was<\/p>\n
                  registered        on    14.5.1998       for    the   offence   under<\/p>\n
                  Sections 341, 323, 326, 307\/34 and 324 of the
\n                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
Indian Penal Code, in which subsequently Section<\/p>\n
302   I.P.C.      was     added     after    the   death     of   the<\/p>\n
injured.     The        informant      had   disclosed     in     his<\/p>\n
fardbeyan that this petitioner and other accused<\/p>\n
persons were involved in a case in which kerosene<\/p>\n
oil was sprinkled on one Ram Bilas Paswan and in<\/p>\n
the said occurrence, thereafter, accused Surendra<\/p>\n
Paswan put fire on the cloths and thereafter, he<\/p>\n
received serious burn injuries. In the F.I.R.,<\/p>\n
there      was     specific        allegation       against       the<\/p>\n
petitioner        and    other     accused      persons.     On    the<\/p>\n
basis of fardbeyan, F.I.R. was registered against<\/p>\n
the petitioner and others. However, subsequently,<\/p>\n
the injured Ram Bilas Paswan died and thereafter<\/p>\n
in the F.I.R., Section 302 I.P.C. was added vide<\/p>\n
order      dated        16.6.1998.       After     investigation,<\/p>\n
police     submitted       charge      sheet     against     accused<\/p>\n
persons,         however,        the     case      against        this<\/p>\n
petitioner        was      found       un-true.     Subsequently,<\/p>\n
supplementary           charge     sheet     was   submitted       on<\/p>\n
31.10.1998 against some of the accused persons.<\/p>\n
Again the petitioner was not forwarded by the<\/p>\n
police. On 22.3.1999, the learned Magistrate took<\/p>\n
cognizance of offence under Sections 324, 326,<\/p>\n
302   of    the    Indian        Penal   against     six     accused
\n                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
persons and also against the petitioner. After<\/p>\n
the     order        of     cognizance,               the      petitioner<\/p>\n
approached      this       Court        by   filing         the     present<\/p>\n
petition. On 12.11.2002, due to non prosecution,<\/p>\n
the     case        was     dismissed            by         this     Court.<\/p>\n
Subsequently,        it    was     restored       and        finally    the<\/p>\n
case was admitted on 3.9.2004. While admitting,<\/p>\n
this Court summoned the lower court records and<\/p>\n
also directed that during the pendency of this<\/p>\n
application, further proceeding pending in the<\/p>\n
court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at<\/p>\n
Hajipur in Tr. No.645 of 1999 shall remain stayed<\/p>\n
so far this petitioner is concerned.<\/p>\n
          3.    Shri       Arun         Kumar,    learned           counsel<\/p>\n
appearing      on    behalf       of     the     petitioner,          while<\/p>\n
challenging the order of cognizance, submits that<\/p>\n
the order of cognizance is liable to be set aside<\/p>\n
on number of grounds. Firstly it was submitted<\/p>\n
that after investigation, police submitted charge<\/p>\n
sheet    against         other    accused        persons.          However,<\/p>\n
this    petitioner        was     exonerated          by     the   police.<\/p>\n
After     submission        of     first       charge        sheet,     the<\/p>\n
learned    Magistrate            took    cognizance           of    offence<\/p>\n
only against one of the accused persons, namely,<\/p>\n
Budhan Paswan by its order dated 29.8.1998. It
\n                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
was submitted that once the learned Magistrate,<\/p>\n
after     submission         of     charge     sheet,       had     taken<\/p>\n
cognizance of offence only against accused Budhan<\/p>\n
Paswan,    the    learned          Magistrate,        at    subsequent<\/p>\n
stage, was not authorized to take cognizance of<\/p>\n
the offence even against this petitioner. It was<\/p>\n
submitted       that        subsequent        order        amounts     to<\/p>\n
reviewing earlier order, which is not permissible<\/p>\n
in the eye of law. It was further submitted that<\/p>\n
even    during further investigation, nothing was<\/p>\n
collected against this petitioner and as such in<\/p>\n
supplementary         charge       sheet      also,     nothing       was<\/p>\n
indicated against this petitioner. The learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate,       after          submission     of      supplementary<\/p>\n
charge sheet without any new material, was not<\/p>\n
authorized       to       take    cognizance       of    the      offence<\/p>\n
against    the    petitioner.          It    was     submitted       that<\/p>\n
neither any protest petition was filed by the<\/p>\n
informant nor any new material was brought before<\/p>\n
the     court     below          and   as     such      the       learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate had committed grave error while taking<\/p>\n
cognizance even against the petitioner. It was<\/p>\n
submitted that the learned Magistrate had passed<\/p>\n
the order without application of mind and in a<\/p>\n
mechanical       manner,         the   learned       Magistrate       has
\n                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
taken cognizance even against this petitioner.<\/p>\n
Learned        counsel          for      the     petitioner         has<\/p>\n
alternatively            argued       that     even     the   accused<\/p>\n
persons against whom charge sheet was submitted<\/p>\n
and   they     were      put    on     trial,    most    of    accused<\/p>\n
persons      have      already         been    acquitted.     It    was<\/p>\n
submitted      that       accused       Budhan    Paswan,      against<\/p>\n
whom there was specific allegation of sprinkled<\/p>\n
kerosene oil, was put on trial in Sessions Trial<\/p>\n
No.262    of     1998     and     on    27.9.2002,      the   learned<\/p>\n
Additional          Sessions           Judge,     F.T.C.III         has<\/p>\n
acquitted Budhan Paswan. Learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner       has      referred       to    Annexure-4      to   the<\/p>\n
supplementary affidavit i.e judgment of acquittal<\/p>\n
dated     27th      September,2002            passed    in    Sessions<\/p>\n
Trial No.262 of 1998. Learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner has referred to paragraph-10 of the<\/p>\n
said judgment and it was argued that even during<\/p>\n
the trial of Budhan Paswan, it was found that the<\/p>\n
informant of the case was not actual eye witness<\/p>\n
and as such he was acquitted. Learned counsel has<\/p>\n
also submitted that other two accused, namely,<\/p>\n
Surendra Paswan and Bisheshwar Paswan were put on<\/p>\n
trial vide Sessions Trial No.401 of 2003 and they<\/p>\n
too were acquitted on 20.4.2004. It has further
\n                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
been submitted that other accused persons have<\/p>\n
already been acquitted from the charges. It has<\/p>\n
been submitted that keeping in view the fact that<\/p>\n
since most of the accused persons, who were put<\/p>\n
on trial, have already been acquitted, no purpose<\/p>\n
would be served by directing the petitioner to<\/p>\n
face trial in such situation. Accordingly, it has<\/p>\n
been   prayed     that     while    exercising      power      under<\/p>\n
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,<\/p>\n
this     Court    may     interfere     with      the    order     of<\/p>\n
cognizance and allow the present petition.<\/p>\n
          4.     Smt.      Indu     Bala       Pandey,      learned<\/p>\n
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf<\/p>\n
of the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer<\/p>\n
of the petitioner. In this case earlier, case<\/p>\n
diary was called for and same is lying with the<\/p>\n
record     of    present     case.      Smt.      Pandey,      while<\/p>\n
referring to number of paragraphs of the case<\/p>\n
diary,    has    argued     that     even    the    victim,       who<\/p>\n
subsequently died due to burn injury, had given<\/p>\n
statement       before    the     police    and    categorically<\/p>\n
stated regarding involvement of the petitioner.<\/p>\n
Besides    the    victim,       other   witnesses       have     also<\/p>\n
supported the case of the prosecution. On the<\/p>\n
aforesaid       ground,    it     has   been    submitted        that
\n                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
keeping in view the material on record, it is a<\/p>\n
fit case where this Court, while rejecting the<\/p>\n
present    case,         may    direct       the    court    below   to<\/p>\n
proceed with the case expeditiously.<\/p>\n
          5. Besides hearing learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the parties, I have also perused the materials<\/p>\n
available on record. So far as argument advanced<\/p>\n
by learned counsel for the petitioner that once<\/p>\n
learned     Magistrate              had    taken     cognizance       on<\/p>\n
submission of first charge sheet, by its order<\/p>\n
dated 29.8.1998, he was not authorized to pass<\/p>\n
the impugned order of cognizance is concerned,<\/p>\n
the court is of the opinion that such submission<\/p>\n
is required to be noticed only for its rejection.<\/p>\n
On the submission of first charge sheet, it is<\/p>\n
true     that   the        learned         Magistrate       had    taken<\/p>\n
cognizance      of       offence      only    against       one   Budhan<\/p>\n
Paswan. However, it does not indicate that while<\/p>\n
taking    cognizance,           the       learned    Magistrate      had<\/p>\n
discharged the petitioner from the case. After<\/p>\n
submission      of       supplementary         charge   sheet      i.e.<\/p>\n
after     completion           of    final    investigation,         the<\/p>\n
learned    Magistrate           had       examined    the     material<\/p>\n
available on record and thereafter, the learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate has passed the impugned order. Keeping
\n                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
in view the materials available in the case diary<\/p>\n
as has been pointed out by learned Additional<\/p>\n
Public Prosecutor as well as specific averment<\/p>\n
made    in    the       F.I.R.    disclosing      commission       of<\/p>\n
serious offence against this petitioner, I am of<\/p>\n
the    opinion      that     while     taking   cognizance,       the<\/p>\n
learned Magistrate has committed no error. So far<\/p>\n
as     acquittal        of     other    accused     persons       are<\/p>\n
concerned      that      has     got   no   relevance      for    the<\/p>\n
purposes      of    deciding      the    present     case.     Other<\/p>\n
accused persons were put on trial. The reason for<\/p>\n
their acquittal cannot be looked into by this<\/p>\n
Court, while hearing a petition against the order<\/p>\n
of cognizance. From the contents of the F.I.R.<\/p>\n
itself, it is evident that serious offence was<\/p>\n
committed by the accused persons. The deceased<\/p>\n
was    caught      by    all     the    accused     persons.      The<\/p>\n
accused      persons      sprinkled      kerosene    oil     on   the<\/p>\n
clothes of the deceased and thereafter, he was<\/p>\n
put on fire. In burning stage, he tried to save<\/p>\n
his life and ran for some time and thereafter,<\/p>\n
the informant and other villagers arrived there<\/p>\n
and for some time, he could be saved. However,<\/p>\n
subsequently, he succumbed to the injuries. In<\/p>\n
such situation, I am of the view that this Court
\n                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
should     refrain       from      interfering          with        such<\/p>\n
prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
           6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit<\/p>\n
in   the   present       petition.       The     petition         stands<\/p>\n
rejected.\n<\/p>\n
           7.    Keeping    in    view    the     fact       that   the<\/p>\n
matter remained pending for a long time before<\/p>\n
this     Court,     it   is      desirable       to     direct       the<\/p>\n
concerned        court     to     proceed        with    the        case<\/p>\n
expeditiously so that the case may come to a<\/p>\n
logical end as early as possible.\n<\/p>\n
           8. With above observation and direction,<\/p>\n
the petition stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
           9.       In     view    of     rejection          of     this\n\npetition,         interim        order      of        stay        stands\n\nautomatically vacated.\n\n<\/pre>\n
           10.     Let the Lower Court Record and case<\/p>\n
diary be remitted to the court below fortwith.<\/p>\n
                                            ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)<\/p>\n
PATNA HIGH COURT
\nDated 15.9.2010
\nN.A.F.R.\/N.H.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Santlal Paswan vs State Of Bihar on 15 September, 2010 Author: Rakesh Kumar CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30840 OF 2002 —- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. —- SANTLAL PASWAN SON OF DEHAL PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BISHANPUR KAWA, POLICE STATION BALIGAON, DISTRICT VAISHALI. … […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-114689","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSantlal Paswan vs State Of Bihar on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Santlal Paswan vs State Of Bihar on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-15T23:19:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Santlal Paswan vs State Of Bihar on 15 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-15T23:19:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1592,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Santlal Paswan vs State Of Bihar on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-15T23:19:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Santlal Paswan vs State Of Bihar on 15 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Santlal Paswan vs State Of Bihar on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Santlal Paswan vs State Of Bihar on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-15T23:19:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Santlal Paswan vs State Of Bihar on 15 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-15T23:19:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010"},"wordCount":1592,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010","name":"Santlal Paswan vs State Of Bihar on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-15T23:19:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santlal-paswan-vs-state-of-bihar-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Santlal Paswan vs State Of Bihar on 15 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114689","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=114689"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114689\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114689"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114689"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114689"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}