Md. Seraj @ Md. Ajaj v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.25297 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -327 Year- 2015 Thana -BHAGWAN BAZAR District- SARAN =========================================================== Md. Seraj @ Md. Ajaj son of Vir Rahman resident of Village Ghosaipur, P.S. Dighwara, District Saran at Chapra .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 15-06-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Bhagwan Bazar P.S. Case No. 327 of 2015 dated 18.12.2015 instituted under Sections 386/387/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he had demanded 'rangdari' (extortion money) for release of Neha Kumari, who was kidnapped, in another case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he along the husband of the informant and others were accused in kidnapping

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25297 of 2016 dt.15-06-2016 2/2 of Neha Kumari and were in jail and thus the allegation against him of demanding extortion money from the informant is patently false. It is further submitted that Neha Kumari, upon recovery, has stated the name of other persons but not the petitioner in her kidnapping and thus the petitioner deserves to be released.

Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner has criminal antecedent and that there is no explanation as to why the informant would falsely implicate the petitioner. It is further submitted that this type of demand of extortion of money is a curse to the society and thus the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. However, the court below shall expedite the trial and conclude the same within nine months.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Anjani/- AFR/NAFR N/A CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 15.06.2016 Transmission Date 15.06.2016