Munna Kumar @ Munna Sharma @ Munna Kumar Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48247 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -252 Year- 2016 Thana -GANDHIMAIDAN District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Munna Kumar @ Munna Sharma @ Munna Kumar Sharma son of Late Nageshwar Mistry resident of Village- Bari Tangraila P.S. Naubatpur, District- Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinay Mistry For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 09-01-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Gandhi Maidan P.S. case No. 252 of 2016 under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that he received a call from mobile No. 8863980144 on his official mobile No. 9470003549. The caller demanded extortion of Rs. 5 lacs. The caller also asked the informant to hand over the extortion till 12 of 19.07.2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR but during the course of investigation the name of petitioner figured in the case. The petitioner was arrested and his confessional statement was recorded. The petitioner is in jail since 21.07.2016. No money was

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48247 of 2016 (2) dt.09-01-2017 2/2 delivered and, therefore, no offence under Section 384 of the IPC is made out. The petitioner is in jail for about six months and he is simply a carpenter in village but during the course of investigation it transpired that mobile No. 8863980144 was issued in the name of petitioner and it was the petitioner who called Superintendent of Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna and demanded extortion of Rs. 5 lacs. The petitioner has got criminal antecedent also.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. If so advised, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after remaining one year in custody.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T