Vijay Rajbhar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6439 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-371 Year-2021 Thana- BUXAR District- Buxar ====================================================== VIJAY RAJBHAR SON OF LALBABU RAJBHAR @ LALBABU RESIDENT OF P.P. ROAD, NEAR MILAP HOTEL, P.S. BUXAR (TOWN), DISTRICT- BUXAR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajit Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 27-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within four weeks of resumption of normal court proceedings. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within stipulated period, office will place the matter before the Bench. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 385, 387, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, the petitioner on the instruction of one Sandeep Yadav is involved in demanding extortion money from the informant and in failure to do so, has given threat to life. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6439 of 2022(2) dt.27-07-2022 2/2 petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. 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. There is no specific allegation of any extortion of money against the petitioner from the informant. Only allegation against the petitioner is that he was standing on the other side of the road.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that one of the co-accused Sandeep Yadav, who is at present in Azamgarh jail had demanded Rs.5 Lakhs from the informant through the petitioner and one other co-accused.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, since the petitioner is also a member of the said group involved in demanding extortion from the informant, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected. This application is accordingly dismissed.

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