Patna High CourtCR. MISC./31429/2024bail rejected

Rustam Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-07-26Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31429 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-232 Year-2023 Thana- TANKUPPA District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

Rustam Kumar, Son of Devendra Kumar, Resident of Village- Mohabatpur, P.S.- Sekhopur Sarai, District- Shekhpura 2.

Ravi Bhushan Kumar, Son of Jitendra Singh, Resident of VillageMohabatpur, P.S.- Sekhopur Sarai, District- Shekhpura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jay Ram Prasad, Advocate Mr. Niranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 26-07-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners have preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Tankuppa P.S. Case no. 232 of 2023 registered under section 364A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that his brother who was called for operating a JCB machine was kidnapped. It is further stated that a demand of Rs.7 lacs was made.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the F.I.R was registered against the holder of the two mobile numbers. The cause of false implication of the petitioners is that one of the mobile numbers happen to belong to the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31429 of 2024(3) dt.26-07-2024 2/2 no.1. The brother of the informant, in fact, operates the JCB machine of the petitioner no.1. It is incorrect to state that as a result of the information provided by the petitioners that the victim was recovered. The petitioners are in custody since 19.11.2023.

5. The prayer for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the F.I.R., the material that has transpired in course of investigation and the antecedents of the petitioners, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to renew their prayer for bail after completing one year in custody or after framing of charge, whichever is later.

(Partha Sarthy, J) avinash/- U T