Sudip Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10850 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2024 Thana- BODHGAYA District- Gaya ====================================================== Sudip Kumar Son of Jayadrath Singh @ Jaidarth Singh @ Jaidarath Singh R/O Vill.- Benipur, P.S.- Rupao, District - Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Anish Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Brajendra Nath Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 04-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Bodhgaya P.S. Case No. 74 of 2024 dated 12.02.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364A read with section 34 of the I.P.C. Later on, Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act were also added.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 11.02.2014 at about 2.30 P.M., the son of the informant, namely, Shyam Singh @ Prince, aged about 15 years, took Rs. 50/- and informed that he was going to the village- Bhusanda and he would return by the evening. When his son did not return in the evening, the
2/4 informant started to call him on his mobile but his mobile was found switched off. Thereafter, the informant tried to search him in the native village. At 9.18 P.M., a call was received on Mobile No. 6206134917 from the Mobile No. 6287668958 and was informed that his son has been kidnapped and demand of Rs. 40,00,000/- was made from the informant. The threat was also given that if he would not give the said money then his son would be killed. It is further alleged that the informant suspected that Rishav Kumar Singh, Durga Yadav, Lalu Yadav, Sanki Manjhi and Jogindra Yadav and some other persons kidnapped the informant's son under conspiracy as there was previous land dispute between them.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. It is submitted that the petitioner is a student and he is preparing for competitive examination and belongs to very poor family and he also works in a musical studio to support his family financially. The victim is not a 15 year old minor child rather his age is about 18 years and having a friendly relationship with the petitioner. It is known by the victim that the petitioner work in the Swatik Music Studio and shoots songs
3/4 for YouTube. The victim also worked as a signer in the said musical studio. On 11.02.2024, the petitioners got a call from Sanjeev Kumar to meet at Bhusanda More to receive their payment. They went there and found that Sanjeev Kumar, Chandan Kumar and Vikash Kumar @ Bikki were already present there. Soon, the victim arrived there, the victim alongwith the petitioner sat in the car and proceeded for Swatik Musical Studio willfully. It is further submitted that the victim was not satisfied with the money paid by Sanjeev Kumar but agreed to shoot a new song video and audio for YouTube from tomorrow. On 12.02.2024, the petitioner, victim and other persons started the shooting of that new video together. Sanjeev Kumar arranged a car and motorcycle and when they were shooting the same, they were arrested by police.
The said vehicles do not belong to the petitioner. The said recovered mobiles from the petitioner were not used in the said crime. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has clean antecedent as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody in this case since 13.02.2024.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner.
4/4
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of custody, the petitioner abovenamed, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned, Gaya in connection with Bodhgaya P.S. Case No. 74 of 2024, with the condition/s:- (i). The petitioner is directed to remain physically present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bond of the petitioner is liable to be cancelled.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) guddukr/- U T