Michle @ Vivekanand Vidarthi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18010 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2014 Thana- MADHUBAN District- East Champaran ====================================================== MICHLE @ VIVEKANAND VIDARTHI S/O JANKI SAH Resident of Village- Wajitpur, P.S.- Madhuban, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 26-07-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of two cases.

4. The informant alleges that he received a ransom call on his mobile number on 16.02.2014 from mobile number 7654664349 and the caller demanded Rs.11 lakhs by way of extortion and disclosed his name as Raushan Singh thereafter again the informant received another extortion call on 17.02.2014 and on 23.05.2014 when he was returning from his kiln (Chimani) two accused persons intercepted and demanded the extortion amount and threatened of killing for non-fulfillment of the demand.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18010 of 2023(2) dt.26-07-2023 2/2 petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR and he came to be implicated based on the confessional statement of Raushan Singh in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law.

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the occurrence is of the year 2014 and from the pleadings made in the anticipatory bail application it is not clear that as to when the name of the petitioner transpired in the case, how the petitioner came to know about the pendency of the case and since nine years have elapsed whether any proceeding under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. has been initiated against the petitioner or not.

7. Considering the submission made by the learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No. 74 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakaridayal, East Champaran/successor Court.

8. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T