Vikash Yadav @ Ramswarup Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26453 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-246 Year-2019 Thana- MADANPUR District- Aurangabad ====================================================== VIKASH YADAV @ RAMSWARUP YADAV Son of Late Govind Yadav R/o Village- Deojara, P.S.- Imamganj, District- Gaya (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 04-12-2020 Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, Additional Public Prosecutor for the state through video conferencing.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Madanpur PS Case No. 246/2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 385 and 387 of the IPC.

3. The allegation, as per First Information Report, is that the informant received a call from Mobile No. 7070603090 on his Mobile bearing No. 9931018038 and the caller introduced himself as Vikash Yadav i.e., the petitioner and demanded extortion amount from the informant giving threat of his life.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case with an

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26453 of 2020(4) dt.04-12-2020 2/3 oblique motive and he has not committed any offence in the manner alleged. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to para-13 of the case diary, submits that the police has not recovered any CDR (Call Detail Record) in order to connect the petitioner with the present offence and to show that any call from Mobile No. 7070603090 was ever made on the date of occurrence.

5. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has been made accused in 25 cases and in 22 cases out of 25 cases, petitioner has been granted bail and he is in custody since 30.11.2019 in the present case.

6. Learned counsel for the State referring to para-13 of the case diary, submits that the police has not collected any CDR of the mobile from which the petitioner, allegedly, had made a call to the informant.

7. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the material on record and the fact that petitioner is in custody since 30.11.2019, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, let the petitioner, VIKASH YADAV @ RAMSWARUP YADAV be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty-five Thousand) with two

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26453 of 2020(4) dt.04-12-2020 3/3 sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in connection with Madanpur PS Case No. 246/2019.

It is made clear that at the time of furnishing bail bonds all the parties shall follow the guidelines of social distancing.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) perwez U T