Ranjeet Sahni @ Ranjit Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5825 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-351 Year-2021 Thana- MINAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Ranjeet Sahni @ Ranjit Sahni Son Of Binda Sahni @ Ramashray Sahni Resident Of Village- Madhuban Kanti, P.S.- Minapur (Panapur O.P.), DistrictMuzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Kumar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-06-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 324, 325, 379, 385, 307, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegedly this petitioner made an extortion demand of Rs. 5,00,000/-from the informant and later on he and co-accused persons surrounded the informant an attempted to kill him on account of non fulfillment of alleged exportation demand.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5825 of 2022(2) dt.21-06-2022 2/2 The main submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the allegation made in complete false in fact the informant was a candidate of mukhiya election in which the petitioner did not support his candidature due to which the present case was falsely lodged to harass him and he has been languishing languishing in jail since 13.11.2021. Learned APP has opposes the prayer for bail.

Heard both the sides and perused the FIR. The present case relates to exportation demand and this petitioner and co-accused persons made extortion was made from the informant but also inflicted him by means of knife and petitioners' role in the alleged crime is specific and as per the paragraph no. 3 of this petition there is criminal antecedent of three cases against him. Considering this facts, in the opinion of this Court it is not a fit case for grant of bail.

Accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected. The petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of chargesheet.

(Shailendra Singh, J) siddharthkr/- U T