Saurav Kumar Thakur @ Saurav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9915 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-285 Year-2019 Thana- KATIHAR MUFFASIL District- Katihar ====================================================== Saurav Kumar Thakur @ Saurav, Son of Late Manoj Thakur @ Late Manoj Kumar Thakur Resident of Village - Bheriya, Rahika, P.S.- Sahayak, Katihar, Dist.- Katihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jitendra Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uday Chand Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 02-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Katihar Muffasil P.S. Case No. 285 of 2019, registered under Sections 384, 504 and 506/34 of Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar. The accusation is that land of the informant Dinesh Paswan was acquired by the government for making of four lane and compensation was to be provided to him, but three persons named in the F.I.R., including the petitioner, started to make demand of ransom, as he will receive much compensation amount. The petitioner usually used to abuse and give threatening to kill him in case of non-giving of ransom. The informant was threatened through mobile No.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9915 of 2020(2) dt.02-03-2020 2/2 7488216512.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that it would appear from the F.I.R. that ransom was not paid by the informant, rather, the allegation is of only making demand of ransom by the petitioner and others. Further submission is that while petitioner is accused in 11 cases, as detailed in paragraph No.3, but, in all cases, he is on bail. The petitioner, in the present case, is in custody since 09.12.2019.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner, above named, is rejected. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six month. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T