Raushan Kumar Thakur @ Raushan Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45532 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-451 Year-2020 Thana- BARAUNI District- Begusarai ====================================================== RAUSHAN KUMAR THAKUR @ RAUSHAN THAKUR S/o Raja Ram Thakur R/o village- Baro, Rajdeopur, Garhara, Ward No. 7, P.S.- Barauni, District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence under Sections 364(A) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

The son of the informant is said to have been abducted by the petitioner and others.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. but during course of investigation, the petitioner has made his self confession and on that basis he has been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45532 of 2021(5) dt.22-03-2022 2/2 apprehended in this case. The petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 24.11.2020.

Learned A.P.P. for the State on the basis of material available on record and the case diary has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is mastermind of the whole occurrence. He further submits that the prayer for bail of the co-accused, Saket Maharaj has been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.11.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 40506 of 2021. Hence, the petitioner, who has played pivotal role in the alleged occurrence, may not be enlarged on bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) brajesh/- U T