Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 9435 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2021 Thana- ARWAL District- Jehanabad ====================================================== 1.
Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Yadav Son of Anant Yadav R/o vill - Mahmadpur tola Par, P.S. - Paliganj, Distt. - Patna 2.
Yogendra Kumar Son of Rajdeo Yadav R/o vill - Mahmadpur tola Par, P.S. - Paliganj, Distt. - Patna 3.
Mahesh Yadav @ Madhesh Yadav Son of Sheo Narayan Yadav R/o vill - Mahmadpur tola Par, P.S. - Paliganj, Distt. - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ashok Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Syed Mojibur Rahman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 20-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners seeks regular bail in connection with Arwal P.S. Case No. 156 of 2021 registered on 08.06.2021 lodged under Sections 341, 323, 307, 386, 379, 504, 506/34 of the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, F.I.R. has been lodged against nine named and 40-45 unknown accused persons against whom there is an allegation that they have reached at the place of occurrence where informant was supervising his construction of culvert on the canal where all accused started demanding
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 9435 of 2024(2) dt.20-02-2024 2/3 ransom/levy.
4. Counsel further submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He further submits that petitioner is in custody since 30.11.2023. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there are three petitioners in this case. Petitioner No. 1 has allegation that he has snatched money from the informant and has 7 antecedents whereas petitioner no. 2 and 3 are concerned, they have no specific allegation upon them neither they have any antecedent.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioners are involved in demand of levy and threatened the informant that till payment of money, they will not allow the construction of culvert on the canal.
6. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, let the petitioner no 2 and 3, be granted bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arwal in connection with Arwal P.S. Case No. 156 of 2021, subject to the following conditions as laid down under Section 437 (3) of the Cr.P.C.
7. So far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 9435 of 2024(2) dt.20-02-2024 3/3 Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner no. 1. Accordingly, the bail application of petitioner no. 1 is hereby rejected. However, he is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail six months after framing of charge.
(Dr. Anshuman, J) Sunnykr/- U