Purushotam Kahar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26600 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2019 Thana- GOVINDPUR District- Nawada ====================================================== PURUSHOTAM KAHAR S/O LATE JAGDISH KAHAR, R/O VILLAGECHOTHA, POLICE STATION-RAJAULI, DISTRICT-NAWADA. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the informant :

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 12-05-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019 registered for offence punishable under section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. As per allegation, the informant received a telephonic call from an unknown number, i.e. 9525144175. The caller demanded Rs.5,00,000/- as ransom and he threatened the informant for dire consequences if he did not pay the demanded money. Again on 29.01.2019, the informant received a call from another mobile No. 9431716758. Again, he was threatened by the person, who made call. The informant disclosed his name as Dharmbir.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26600 of 2021(5) dt.12-05-2022 2/2 The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that co-accused, Manoj Kumar Mehta and Jaswant Kumar Mehta were arrested during the course of investigation and they disclosed the name of the present petitioner. He has also submitted that except confessional statement, there is nothing against the petitioner in the entire case diary.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant has submitted that not only the miscreants demanded ransom from the informant, but due to non-fulfillment of the demand, the miscreants, including the petitioner attacked the family members of the informant in which the nephew of the informant died and in this respect, a separate case has been lodged. In that case also, the petitioner has been implicated as an accused. He has also submitted that it is an unauthorized gang and in pursuance of common intention, they committed offence.

Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

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