Santosh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22688 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-178 Year-2015 Thana- TRIVENIGANJ District- Supaul ====================================================== Santosh Kumar Son Of Dinesh Kumar Singh Resident Of Village - Kursandi, Ward No.02, Police Station - Puraini, District - Madhepura, Pin - 852210. Address At Present - Resident Of Village - Chunapur, Police Station - Purnia, District - Purnia ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rajesh Roy, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 29-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 384, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(A), 66(C ) and 66(E) of the I.T. Act.
3. As per allegation in the FIR, the informant Amla Devi, MLA of Legislative Assembly is that on 07.01.2015, she received a message on her government mobile number 9473194140 through mobile no.7248865614 at about 12.08 P.M. for ransom of Rs.5 lachs otherwise she was threatened to be killed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22688 of 2024(2) dt.29-04-2024 2/2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to some ulterior motives and no specific role attributed against the petitioner.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. On perusal of the first information report and impugned order dated 08.01.2024, it appears that the name of the petitioner surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused and total nine criminal antecedents against the petitioner in similar nature like an extortion of money under Sections 386, 384 and 385 and various offences under the I.T. Act, so petitioner is a habitual offender and this is a serious case and investigating officer is required to interrogate the petitioner and other materials so considering all aspects of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
7. Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T