Sunil Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23259 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-134 Year-2020 Thana- CHAPRA MUFFASIL District- Saran ====================================================== SUNIL RAI Son of Rambilas Ray @ Ram Bilash Rai Resident of VillageSandha, P.S.- Chapra Muffasil, District- Saran at Chapra. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Asha Devi, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-09-2020 This matter is taken up for consideration through Video Conferencing under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in Chapra Muffasil P.S. Case No. 134 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 384, 386, 342, 307, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. As per the prosecution case, on 21.03.2020, the petitioner along with eight named accused persons and 30 to 40 unknown persons were demolishing the bounary wall of the school of informant with the help of JCB and two employees of the school were confined. It is further alleged that petitioner fired upon the informant, which did not hit him and also demanded ransom of Rs. Fifty lakhs. Southern wall of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23259 of 2020(2) dt.11-09-2020 2/2 school was demolished.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. There is land dispute between the parties. Both parties are close relative. It is further submitted that the informant and petitioner have purchased the same piece of land from different branches of the family. Partition Suit No. 243/2011 is pending and when the informant is trying to change the ground situation of the land, it was objected by petitioner and only to put pressure, this false case has been filed by the informant.

Learned APP as well as counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is specific allegation of firing and demand of ransom against the petitioner.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation and the fact that petitioner has got criminal antecedent and there are many criminal case of serious nature pending against him, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T