Patna High CourtCR. MISC./44790/2017dismissed

Pappu Yadav @ Suraj Prakash Kumar @ Pappu Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2017-10-10Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.44790 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -76 Year- 2017 Thana -SACHIWALAYA District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Pappu Yadav @ Suraj Prakash Kumar @ Pappu Kumar Yadav Son of hazari Yadav R/o Gopalpur P.S. Sathi, District West Champaran at Bettiah .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 10-10-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This is an application for bail in connection with Sachiwalaya P.S. Case No. 76 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 386, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66 of Information and Technology Act. Allegation against the petitioner is of demanding ransom from Cane Minister, Government of Bihar. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has falsely been implicated in this case and prosecution case is totally false and concocted. Further submission is that petitioner is not named in the FIR and there is delay of seven days in lodging the FIR and he is in custody for about 3 1⁄2 months. Heard learned APP also, who has opposed the prayer

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44790 of 2017 (3) dt.10-10-2017 2/2 for bail stating on the basis of Aadhar card of the petitioner SIM was taken and from the said mobile the ransom was demanded and further he has also drawn my attention towards paragraphs 10 and 18 of the case diary, which show the involvement of the petitioner in crime.

Having heard both sides and in view of facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. However, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge in this case.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U T