Shankar Yadav @ Baba @ Pandit Ji v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23935 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-368 Year-2022 Thana- PARASBIGHA District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Shankar Yadav @ Baba @ Pandit Ji S/O Kamla Yadav @ Kamala Yadav Resident of Village- Bhikhanpur, P.S.- Koch, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 17-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 24.12.2022 in connection with Parasbigha P.S. Case No. 368 of 2022, F.I.R. dated 21.12.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 385, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code but the police has submitted charge sheet under Section 384, 386 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

According to prosecution case, some unknown miscreants are said to have demanded levy amount of Rs. 2 lakhs from the informant. It is further alleged that on protest, those miscreants threaten him for dire consequences. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23935 of 2023(3) dt.17-07-2023 2/2 present case. He further submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R and the name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused person, namely, Harsh Raj. He further submits that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession or the house of the petitioner.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the basis of material available on record and the case diary has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has been identified by the informant and apart from the aforesaid, the petitioner has also confessed his guilt in the present occurrence and it has come during investigation that the petitioner has received the amount in question.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Parasbigha P.S. Case No. 368 of 2022 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jehanabad. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T