Santosh Kumar Das @ Santosh Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.46063 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -122 Year- 2016 Thana -KALYANPUR DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Santosh Kumar Das @ Santosh Das Son of Deep Lal Das @ Deepa Das Resident of Village- Pipra Khem Tola Bishun Pur P.S.- Kalyan Pur, District- East Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt Indu Kumari Srivastava ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 28-11-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 122/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 386, 354 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant alleged that the petitioner used to use abusive language against his daughter from his mobile number to the mobile of the informant. The petitioner was pressurizing the informant to marry his daughter with the petitioner. When the informant did not agree to marry, the petitioner and two other unknown persons came and demanded extortion.

Sri Vijay Shankar Srivastava, learned counsel for the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46063 of 2016 (2) dt.28-11-2016 2/2 petitioner submits that the petitioner is supporter of Priyanka Sinha who won the election of Mukhiya and the informant is supporter of Ratnesh @ Ramesh Gupta, former Mukhiya who lost election. It is further submitted that the petitioner and Manisha Kumari, daughter of the informant were taking tuition from the same teacher and love relation developed between the two. It appears from the order sheet itself that the petitioner used abusive languages and threatened the informant to marry his daughter with the petitioner and on refusal he demanded extortion.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Rakhi U T