Patna High CourtCR. MISC./15236/2024rejected

Aniket Chakrabortry v. The State Of Bihar

2024-05-20Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15236 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-332 Year-2023 Thana- SAHEBPUR KAMAL DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== Aniket Chakrabortry Son Of Anil Chakraborty Resident Of Village- Champa Toli Ward No. 40, P.S. - Sadar, District - Purnia ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 20-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S. Kamal P.S. Case No. 332 of 2023 instituted for the offences punishable under Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 04.12.2023 the husband of the informant was kidnapped when he went out to drive jeep and later on unknown persons demanded a ransom of Rs. Two lakh twenty thousand and if she did not pay the money, they threatened her to kill her husband.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent, has committed no offence and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that petitioner is in custody since 06.12.2023.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15236 of 2024(4) dt.20-05-2024 2/2 the prayer for bail.

6. From perusal of the case diary, F.I.R. and also perused the impugned order dated 24.01.2024, it appears that name of the present petitioner has been transpired from the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the victim, Brajesh Yadav. They even demanded a ransom of worth Rs. Two lakh twenty thousand rupees and threatened the informant to send it through pay phone otherwise they would kill her husband.

7. Considering the seriousness of allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) saurabhkr/- U T