Patna High CourtCR. MISC./15194/2015dismissed

Chintu Kumar Verma @ Amit Verma v. The State Of Bihar

2015-06-08Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.15194 of 2015 Arising out of PS.Case No. -270 Year- 2014 Thana -DARBHANGA District- DARBHANGA ====================================================== Chintu Kumar Verma @ Amit Verma, S/o Late Balkrishna Prasad, resident of Mohalla Ballopokhar, Nagmandir, P.S. Town, District Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jha, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Smt. Anita Kumari Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-06-2015 The petitioner is languishing in custody since 24.11.2014 in connection with Darbhanga Town P.S. Case No. 270 of 2014 for the offences instituted under Sections 386 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.11.2014 at about 2.00 P.M. ransom amount of Rs. 5000/- was made on mobile of the informant. At about 2.30 P.M. this petitioner and one Bipin Roy alongwith others came to office of the informant and by pressing pistol to the staff Mithilesh Kumar and teacher Sandeep Kumar gave threatening to do away the life and continued demand of Rs. 5000/-.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15194 of 2015 (2) dt.08-06-2015 2 / 2 It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Further it has been submitted that so far as the alleged offence is concern, the same is not made out as no demand of money has taken place. On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the petitioner had demanded amount of Rs. 5,000/- as ransom from the informant. Further it has been pointed out that the petitioner is accused in two other cases.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected in connection with Darbhanga Town P.S. Case No. 270 of 2014, pending in the court of the learned C.J.M., Darbhanga. Anyhow, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after completion one year in custody.

U.K./- (Sudhir Singh, J) U T