Sonu Yadav @ Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20689 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-618 Year-2021 Thana- BIHAR District- Nalanda ====================================================== SONU YADAV @ SONU KUMAR Son of Ramprit Kumar Nirala @ Ramprit Yadav R/O Village - Patuana, P.S.- Bihar, District - Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raj Kishor Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 17-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 386 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per prosecution case, the informant along with his three friends were going to perform Pooja at Sant Babam, in the meantime, four miscreants caught them and took away to a unknown place. The miscreants assaulted the informant and his friends and demanded Rs. 50,00,000/- as ransom. It is further alleged that the miscreants called from the informant's mobile to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20689 of 2023(3) dt.17-07-2023 2/3 his guardian to transfer some money in the account, thereafter, the guardian of the informant transferred Rs. 10,000/- in the bank account as alleged in the FIR and snatched the informant's phone.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has committed no offence. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. The name of the petitioner has come into light, on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Sobhi Kumar, which has got no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. Nothing incriminating/looted articles have been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Petitioner is neither the account holder of Google pay nor has Bank account in the said Bank, which is mentioned in the FIR. He is languishing in judicial custody since 20.09.2022.

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as period of custody, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20689 of 2023(3) dt.17-07-2023 3/3 only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below in connection with Bihar P.S. Case No. 618 of 2021.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) arish/- U T