Suraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31509 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2025 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR TOWN DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== Suraj Kumar Son of Mishri Lal Sah Resident of Village- Khabra Dumri PS -Sadar, Dist- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Dr. Bipin Chandra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jai Narain Thakur ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 21-05-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Town P.S. Case No. 50 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 318(4) of BNS.

3. In the light of a news item published in the newspaper, an enquiry was conducted under the supervision of the District Transport Officer, Muzaffarpur and it has been found that the petitioner, who is said to be Munshi of a Motor Vehicle Inspector, extorted Rs.10,000/- from a Truck driver on his Google Pay.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the alleged occurrence is said to have been taken place on 15.01.2025 but the present FIR came to be lodged on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31509 of 2025(2) dt.21-05-2025 2/3 28.01.2025. In fact, the driver of the vehicle and the petitioner are said to be of the same village and there was some transaction on account of the fact that they were acquainted to each other. It is further contended that the FIR does not disclose the number of the vehicle and, as such, the investigation has not been conducted in proper manner. The petitioner is a man of fair antecedent and in fact he has no concern with the Motor Vehicle Inspector and, as such, any demand on his part prima facie does not inspire confidence. It is lastly contended that the petitioner undertakes that he will fully cooperate in the investigation and the proceeding of the court.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the complicity of the petitioner transpired in the enquiry and he has also received an amount of Rs.10,000/- through Google Pay.

6. Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that the description of the vehicle has not been disclosed in the FIR, coupled with the delay in lodging of the FIR as also the other infirmities in search and seizure, 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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31509 of 2025(2) dt.21-05-2025 3/3 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, Muzaffarpur in connection with Town P.S. Case No. 50 of 2025, 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