Ameet Kumar Rai v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28626 of 2015 (3) dt.01-10-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.28626 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -749 Year- 2014 Thana -AHIAPUR District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Ameet Kumar Rai S/o Shree Dasrath Rai R/o Village Jhapaha Dih, PS - Ahiyapur, District - Muzaffarpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Pandey (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 01-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Ahiyapur P.S. Case No.749 of 2014 instituted under Sections 385 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case, in short, came into existence on the basis of a written report of the informant recorded by the O/C Ahiyapur Police Station on 20.12.2014 alleging inter alia that on 13.12.2014 he received cellular call on his Mobile Cell from Cell NO.7765069807 regarding demand of Rupees Five Lacs as Rangdari, failing which threatened to kill.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and he is said to have falsely been implicated in the present case at the instance of coaccused Jitendra Mahto, who is alleged to have named the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28626 of 2015 (3) dt.01-10-2015 petitioner in his confessional statement. Except that, there is no other material against the petitioner. The said Jitendra Mahto at one point of time was working as a Driver in the Transport Company of the petitioner and he was removed from the said Company due to his bad habits. The other co-accused have also been granted regular bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No.13080/2015 and Cr. Misc. No.13374/2015.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the first information report and his name has figured on the basis of the confessional statement of the coaccused. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the same is rejected. Any how, if the petitioner surrenders in the court below and pray for regular bail, the same shall be considered and, if possible, disposed of on the same day by the court below on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order of rejection taking into account that other co-accused has been granted regular bail.

V.P.Sinha/- (Sudhir Singh, J) U