Rohit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17143 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-416 Year-2023 Thana- MUFFASIL District- West Champaran ====================================================== ROHIT KUMAR SON OF LATE SRI TIMAL PRASAD @ LATE TIMAL PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - NEW BUS STAND ROAD, P.S. - BETTIAH (TOWN), DISTRICT - WEST CHAMPARAN ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 25-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned APP for the State.

2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Bettiah (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 416 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364A of the IPC.

3. As per allegation, the petitioner kidnapped the brother of the informant and demanded Rs. 30,000/- as ransom. Further, the informant along with his son went at the place where the petitioner had called him but in the meanwhile, the police party came there and apprehended the petitioner and co-accused Vijay Patel.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. As a matter of fact, the son of informant was damaging the Mango fruits of the orchard of the informant. He has submitted further that the informant has been examined during trial as PW 1 and he did not support the prosecution case. The informant in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17143 of 2024(5) dt.25-07-2024 2/2 paragraph no. 14 of his deposition has stated that his son was not kidnapped. He submitted further that it is unbelievable that one may kidnap a person for a small amount of Rs. 30,000/-.

5. On the other hand, Mr. J.N. Thakur, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the witnesses have supported the occurrence and the victim has also supported the occurrence in his statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

6. The informant did not support the prosecution case and the petitioner is under custody since 04.08.2023.

7. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, let the petitioner above-named be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with Bettiah (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 416 of 2023, subject to the following condition:- (i) The petitioner shall cooperate in the disposal of trial and make himself available as and when required by the court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) kundan/- U T