Raman Jee Sahni @ Raman Kumar Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16451 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2022 Thana- HAYAGHAT District- Darbhanga ====================================================== RAMAN JEE SAHNI @ RAMAN KUMAR SAHNI Son of Jharokhi Sahni @ Shiv Shanker Sahni R/V- and Post Office- Trimuhani Sosari, P.S- Hayaghat Dist-Dabhanga Pin 847201 ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Ranjan Ratna Rakesh Son of Late Amrit Yadav R/V- Enarawa, PostJageshwar Shtan, PS- Phulparas, Dist- Madhubani, presenly working as an Assistant Teacher of the Middle School Raselpur P.S and Block Hayaghat, Dist- Darbhanga ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kaushalesh Choudhary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nawal Kishore Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 24-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Hayaghat P.S. Case No. 05/2022 for the offence registered under Sections 341, 323, 364, 406 and 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 06.01.2022 by the informant, Ranjan Ratan Rakesh.

As per the FIR, it is alleged that informant's wife gave Rs. 4,00,000/- to the petitioner for the purpose of Makhana business. On 03.01.2022, informant's wife received a call from petitioner's father wherein he asked to sent informant to bank

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16451 of 2023(2) dt.24-05-2023 2/2 where his son will pay the amount. On 04.01.2022 at about 08:00 o clock, petitioner came at informant's house and they both left for bank. But near Basdeeh, accused petitioner along with other co- accused kidnapped informant and demanded ransom money of Rs. 20,00,000/- and when he talked to petitioner, they all left him near Singhiya.

From the FIR, it is clear that it was the petitioner, who gave order following which the informant was abducted and thereafter a telephonic conversation was also took place in which demand of Rs. 20,00,000/- was made.

Certainly, this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, which is accordingly rejected. However, if the petitioner surrenders within a period of four weeks from today, the Court concerned shall take up the matter and dispose of the same without being prejudiced by any of the observation made therein preferably on the same day. (Rajiv Roy, J) Jagdish/Neha/- U T