Shambhu Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1795 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-366 Year-2019 Thana- BANIAPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Shambhu Rai Son of Chandrama Rai @ Chandrma Ray Resident of Village - Hansrajpur, Police Station - Baniyapur, District - Saran (Chapra). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Vinod Shanker Modi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 26-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Baniapur P.S. Case No. 366 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 384, 380, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution case, this petitioner along with four unknown persons came to the Hotel of informant, assaulted his staff and also took away cash from cash box. It is further alleged that this petitioner damaged furniture and threatened of dire consequence and also demanded extortion money for running Hotel at Hansrajpur.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it is an admitted case of previous enmity. There is no injury report. No amount for extortion money was delivered to the petitioner, as

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1795 of 2022(3) dt.26-04-2022 2/2 such no case under Section 384 IPC is made out against this petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 16.01.2021. Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is specific and direct allegation against this petitioner of commission of assault and demand of ransom. Petitioner has got criminal antecedents and is accused in as many as six cases.

Considering the nature of accusation and criminal antecedent of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T