Gaurav Singh @ Gaurav Kumar Singh @ Kumar Gaurav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17080 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -101 Year- 2016 Thana -SAHARSA District- SAHARSA ====================================================== Suman Saurav @ Mithu, Son of Suranjan Prasad Singh, Resident of villageNear Matassya-Gandha, P.S. and District- Saharsa .... .... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.17505 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -101 Year- 2016 Thana -SAHARSA District- SAHARSA ====================================================== Gaurav Singh @ Gaurav Kumar Singh @ Kumar Gaurav S/o- Goutam Singh, Resident of village- P.H.E.D. Colony, Naya Bazar, P.S. and DistSaharsa .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.19066 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -101 Year- 2016 Thana -SAHARSA District- SAHARSA ====================================================== Gautam Kumar Son of Sita Ram Roy, Resident of Village - Naya Bazar, Ward No. 3, P.S. Saharsa, District - Saharsa. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

(In Cr.Misc. No.17080 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. P.N.Pandit, APP (In Cr.Misc. No.17505 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sangita Sharma , APP (In Cr.Misc. No.19066 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP

2/4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 23-06-2016 All the criminal miscellaneous applications are of the same occurrence and as such have been heard together and are being disposed of by passing this common order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioners seek bail in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 101 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 386, 387 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, ransom of Rs. one crore was demanded from the informant on his mobile through mobile No. 9060773449 causing threats to kill him and further, demand of Rs. ten lacs was made through that mobile from the owner of Koshi Pathology. During investigation, the said SIM was found purchased in the name of Premlata Kumari who stated the name of the petitioner, Gautam Kumar that he took away the relevant copy of the documents from her for giving benefit in Government scheme and thereafter, the statement of Gautam Kumar was recorded and he stated the name of the petitioner, Suman Saurav @ Mithu and Gaurav Singh @ Gaurav Kumar

3/4 Singh @ Kumar Gaurav that those forms and documents were given to them.

Submission is of false implication and that the suspicion was raised against Rajeet Yadav who has sold the said SIM without verifying the identity but he has been allowed bail vide Criminal Miscellaneous No. 17907 of 2016, the petitioner, Suman Saurav @ Mithu, Gaurav Singh @ Gaurav Kumar Singh @ Kumar Gaurav and Gautam Kumar have got no criminal antecedent and without any fault, they are suffering in custody, no amount was paid to anyone, charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence.

Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioners, above named, are directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 101 of 2016, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioners

4/4 shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on their part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioners from privilege of bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) ajaypd./- U T