Sourabh Kumar Singh @ Sourabh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26195 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-200 Year-2019 Thana- BANKA District- Banka ====================================================== SOURABH KUMAR SINGH @ SOURABH KUMAR Son of Ramesh Kumar Singh @ Ramesh Pd. Singh R/V- Bandri, Tonapathar, PS- Katoria, Dist- Banak ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Pronoti Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 14-07-2023 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Pronoti Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Banka PS Case No. 200/2019 dated 27.03.2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 387 of the IPC.

3. As per FIR, it is a case of demand of extortion money of Rs. 4 Lacs from the informant made through mobile bearing No. 8677841814 on 20.03.2019 and again on 23.03.2019 by mobile no. 7635052316, the informant was further threatened of dire consequences if the extortion money is not paid.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and he has falsely been implicated in this case due to oblique motive. He further submits that the only allegation against the petitioner is that one of the two numbers bearing mobile bearing No. 8677841814 belongs to the petitioner by which on 20.03.2019, the demand of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26195 of 2023(2) dt.14-07-2023 2/2 Rs. 4 Lacs was made from the informant but nothing has been paid by the informant as extortion money.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on record and the impugned order.

6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the active involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime is very much there inasmuch the call data record shows the petitioner is the owner of the mobile number 8677841814 by which the call of extortion was made and further one another co-accused namely, Shubham Kumar @ Baua also disclosed the involvement of the petitioner in the said offence.

7. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to differ with the findings of learned Sessions Judge, inasmuch as the case is under investigation wherein the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary based upon the material collected by the police during course of investigation. As such, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, hereby dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) perwez U T