Amit Kumar @ Gaya @ Gaiya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8352 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-422 Year-2019 Thana- NAUBATPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Amit Kumar @ Gaya @ Gaiya, aged about 19 years, Male, Son of Sanjay Singh Resident of Village - Pali, P.S. - Naubatpur, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 09-06-2020 The matter has been heard via video conferencing due to lockdown imposed on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Naubatpur PS Case No. 422 of 2019 dated 27.06.2019 instituted under Sections 506/386/387/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioner and four others is of demand of extortion and threatening various shopkeepers.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the police and is a

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8352 of 2020 dt.09-06-2020 2/2 young boy aged about 20 years and languishing in jail since 26.08.2019. It was submitted that the petitioner though has four other cases registered against him, but all have been on account of false implication. It was submitted that the petitioner is suffering from ailment of the nerve.

6. Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that various shopkeepers have specifically taken the name of the petitioner as one of the persons who had demanded extortion and threatened them with dire consequences if not paid on the pretext that the leader of their gang who was in jail had to be taken out and for securing bail, money was required. It was further submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedent, including under the Arms Act.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Anjani/- AFR/NAFR U T