Prashant Kumar Roy @ Bablu Saw @ Bablu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30978 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-488 Year-2024 Thana- RAJGIR District- Nalanda ====================================================== Prashant Kumar Roy @ Bablu Saw @ Bablu Kumar S/o Gore Lal Yadav @ Gorelal Yadav Permanent Resident of Mohalla- Bangali Pada, Rajgir, P.S.- Rajgir, District- Nalanda. At present R/o Sri Lakshmi Swarnkar, Mai Asthan Sugauli, P.S.- Sugauli, Distt.- Motihari (East Champaran) ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Manish Kumar No 13 For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Jagdhar Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 13-08-2025 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Rajgir P.S. Case No. 488 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 127(2), 111(3), 111(4), 351(2), 61(2), 3(5), 316(2) of BNS, 2023.
3. Allegedly the premises of the petitioner, which was given on rent to persons for running network marketing in the name of M.R. Pvt., altogether 79 persons were kept hostage on the pretext of providing job. The accused persons also by luring innocent persons extorted Twenty Four Lakhs.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been made accused only on account of he being the owner of the premises, which was given on rent to one
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30978 of 2025(3) dt.13-08-2025 2/3 Ramnath Kumar for running M.R. Pvt. for 11 months. To support the aforesaid contention, a Rent Agreement has been placed on record as Anneuxre-P/2. It is submitted that 79 persons, who were found kept hostage in the premises, have never made any allegation against the petitioner, whatsoever. The petitioner is a government school teacher working in a Middle School under Sugauli Block and has nothing to do with the network marketing. Taking this Court through the materials available on record as well as the impugned order, it is submitted that the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been turned down only on account of he being the owner of the premises, has not taken any lawful steps to curb the illegalities.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the petitioner being the owner of the premises must have verified as to what kind of business the renter is doing.
6. Having considered the submissions set forth by the learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking note of the materials available on record and especially the fact that the persons, who were kept hostage, have not made any allegation against the petitioner as also the rent agreement, which suggests that the premises, where occurrence took place, was given on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30978 of 2025(3) dt.13-08-2025 3/3 rent, let the petitioner abovenamed be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda, Bihar Sharif in connection with Rajgir P.S. Case No. 488 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No. 6854 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with the further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J) Anjani/- U T