Sanjeev Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24698 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2024 Thana- BODHGAYA District- Gaya ====================================================== Sanjeev Kumar S/o Rajendra Prasad R/o Village- Chulhai Bigha, P.S.- Warsaliganj, District- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Priya Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Bodhgaya P.S. Case No. 74 of 2024 dated 12.02.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 11.02.2014 at about 2.30 P.M., the son of the informant, namely, Shyam Singh @ Prince, aged about 15 years, took Rs. 50/- and informed that he was going to the village- Bhusanda and he would return by the evening. When his son did not return in the evening, the informant started to call him on his mobile but his mobile was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24698 of 2025(2) dt.25-06-2025 2/3 found switched off. Thereafter, the informant tried to search him in the native village. At 9.18 P.M., a call was received on Mobile No. 6206134917 from the Mobile No. 6287668958 and was informed that his son was kidnapped and demand of Rs. 40,00,000/- was made from the informant. The threat was also given that if he would not give the said money then his son would be killed. It is further alleged that the informant suspected that Rishav Kumar Singh, Durga Yadav, Lalu Yadav, Sanki Manjhi and Jogindra Yadav and some other miscreants kidnapped the informant's son under conspiracy due to previous land dispute between them.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. The name of the petitioner has sprung up in the confessional statement of the co-accused person. The petitioner and the informant's son is known to each other. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged occurrence. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 13.02.2024. The co-accused person has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 16.06.2025

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24698 of 2025(2) dt.25-06-2025 3/3 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 23240 of 2025.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the bail petition of the petitioner and submitted that earlier the regular bail petition of the petitioner has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.09.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 52762 of 2024.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of custody, the petitioner abovenamed, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned, Gaya in connection with Bodhgaya P.S. Case No. 74 of 2024, with a condition:- (i) The petitioner is directed to remain physically present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bonds of the petitioner are liable to be cancelled.

7. The application stands allowed.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) shivam/- U T