Motiur Rahman v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46794 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2021 Thana- BETTIAH CITY District- West Champaran ====================================================== MOTIUR RAHMAN S/o MD. ALAM R/o VILLAGE-BHOGARI, P.S.- MAJHAULIYA, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

M/s Bimlesh Kumar Pandey Amit Kumar Pandey, Advocates For the Opposite Party/s :

Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 08-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 385 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, the informant received extortion calls from mobile number given in the FIR asking him to pay a sum of Rs. 20 lacs or else his son would be shot dead. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no incriminating article has transpired in course of investigation to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. He has been falsely implicated in the case. He has no concern with the mobile number in question. The petitioner is in custody since 5.6.2021. Chargesheet has been submitted in the case. It is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46794 of 2021(3) dt.08-03-2022 2/2 further submitted that the petitioner has been enlarged on bail in the connected case being Bettiah Town (Kalibagh O.P.) P.S. case no. 104 of 2021 by order dated 27.1.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 48971 of 2021.

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State who submits that the petitioner is named in the FIR as the owner of the mobile phone. Further in course of investigation the mobile phone instrument was recovered and from the IMEI of the same, it was confirmed that it was the petitioner who had made the extortion calls.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the materials on record, the allegation in the FIR together with the materials collected in course of investigation, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Spd/- U T