Dablu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17777 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -397 Year- 2015 Thana -SAHEBPUR KAMAL District- BEGUSARAI ====================================================== Dablu Yadav, Son of Late Surya Narain Yadav, Resident of Village Gyantol, Police Station- S. Kamal in the district of Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anita Kumari Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anuradha Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 29-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is an accused in connection with S.Kamal P.S. Case No. 397 of 2015, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 386 and 387 of Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Begusarai. The prosecution case is that on 07.11.2015 informant being the brick-kiln owner was present at his brick-kiln along with his other staff for accounting of wages of the labourers. At that time, four named accused and six unknown reached there and on the point of rifle petitioner asked to give the remaining ransom of Rs. 1,50,000/- out of Rs. Two lakhs, due to fear, the informant handed over Rs. 16,000/- to him and his Munsi also handed over Rs. 5,000/- to the accused persons. At that time, Dilip Yadav threw registers and other account books and all the persons went from there after giving

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17777 of 2016 (2) dt.29-04-2016 2/2 threatening to kill the owner of the brick-kiln and his partner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that due to land dispute, the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Further submission is that mother of the petitioner has also lodged a case against the informant of the present case. The petitioner is in custody since 05.01.2016. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner with submission that there is direct allegation against the petitioner to demand the ransom and he has criminal antecedent as detailed in para 03 of the petition. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner, above named, is rejected.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T