Umesh Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22121 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-239 Year-2020 Thana- DHAKA District- East Champaran ====================================================== UMESH SAH Son of Jai Narain Sah Resident of Village - Islampur ward no. 8, P.S.- Raxaul, District - East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocae For the State :

Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 30-11-2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under section 387 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, extortion call was received by the informant from the mobile number mentioned in the FIR.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the mobile number mentioned in the FIR does not belong to him and he has no connection with the alleged calls. It is further submitted that in course of investigation another complaint was made by the informant that he had received yet another call for extortion from the mobile number which was allegedly recovered from the petitioner's possession. The petitioner has no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22121 of 2021(5) dt.30-11-2021 2/2 concern with the same. He is in custody since 14.7.2020 and charge sheet has been submitted in the case. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitoner that in compliance of the direction of this Court, a supplementary affidavit has been filed bringing on record a copy of the receipt depositing cost of Rs. 5,000/- with the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee.

Heard learned APP for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record it transpires that subsequent to lodging of the FIR, yet another call was received by the informant making a demand of rangdari of Rs. 20 lacs and the said mobile was recovered from the possession of this petitioner.

In the facts of the case, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected. In view of the petitioner having remained in custody since 14.7.2020, liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail, if there is no progress in the learned trial Court, in six months.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Prakash/- U