Guddu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7093 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-71 Year-2022 Thana- ROH District- Nawada ====================================================== Guddu Kumar Son of Salendra Ram Resident of Village- Gokhula, P.S.- Sikandra, District- Jamui ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Gauri Shankar Gupta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 16-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner in the present case is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Roh P.S. Case No. 71 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 385 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code. He has got two criminal antecedents.

As per the prosecution story, on 06.03.2022 at 12:00 P.M., 5-6 unknown persons armed with weapons came at the Brick Klin of the informant and demanded his mobile number from the staff. When the staff refused to give mobile number of the informant, they snatched mobile phones of Dhaniram and Sunil Kumar and asked them to inform their master to talk with them. It is further alleged that on 08.03.2022 at 07:00 P.M. they demanded Rs.1 lakh rangdari from the informant by calling on his mobile from the snatched phone of Dhaniram.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7093 of 2023(2) dt.16-05-2023 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to village politics.

Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations wherein this petitioner is said to be involved in extortion and has got two criminal antecedents as stated in paragraph '3' and one of them is of similar nature, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, thus, refused.

This application stands dismissed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) SUSHMA2/- U T