Virju Jha @ Birju Jha @ Birju Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4626 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-414 Year-2022 Thana- BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== VIRJU JHA @ BIRJU JHA @ BIRJU KUMAR JHA Son of Anand Jha R/vUlao, Ward No. 3, P.S.- Mufasil (O.P. Singhaul) District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vinod Gautam, Adv.

For the State :

Mr.Dilip Kumar No.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 06-04-2023 Heard the parties.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Begusarai Mufassil (Singhoul) P.S. Case No.414 of 2022 registered for the offence punishable u/s 341/323/387/504/506/34 of IPC.

Allegation against the petitioner is that of demanding Extortion Tax from the informant through mobile No.9334755706 and also of threatening the informant. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. The allegation leveled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. It is submitted that earlier the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4626 of 2023(2) dt.06-04-2023 2/2 petitioner has been falsely implicated by the informant in one Begusarai Mufassil (Singhaul) P.S. Case No.244 of 2015 u/s 376/506 of the IPC and POCSO Act. It is further submitted that there is no witness in the present case. Petitioner has one criminal antecedent.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that while passing the impugned order, the case diary was considered and the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The other witnesses at para-06, 07, 14, 15 and 16 have supported the allegation of demand of 'Rangdari'. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

However, if petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below, within a period of six weeks from today and seek regular bail, learned Court below would pass order, preferably on the same day, in accordance with law.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T