Neelesh Kumar @ Golu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36358 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2025 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria ====================================================== 1.
Neelesh Kumar @ Golu Kumar S/o Madan Yadav R/o vill - Pitunjhiya, P.S.- Gogari, Distt.- Khagaria 2.
Pinkesh Kumar S/o Madan Yadav R/o vill - Pitunjhiya, P.S.- Gogari, Distt.- Khagaria 3.
Madan Yadav S/o Late Siyaram Yadav R/o vill - Pitunjhiya, P.S.- Gogari, Distt.- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-06-2025 Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Gogari P.S. Case No. 30 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 06.02.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 308(2), 352 and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, all these petitioners have demanded Rs. 50,000/- as ransom from the informant and threatenend him to kill if he fails to pay the same.
2/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have clean antecedent and petitioner no . 3 carries one criminal antecedent other than the present one but he is on bail in the said pending case and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioners have not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that from perusal of the F.I.R it appears that petitioners have demanded ransom of Rs. 50,000/- from the informant and then the informant informed the police about the same which suggest that the F.I.R has been lodged afterthought only to falsely implicate the petitioners and apart from that the informant has not paid any amount to the petitioners and due to some petty dispute the present occurrence took place.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have clean antecedent, due to some petty dispute the present occurrence took place and the informant has not paid any amount to the petitioners, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender
3/4 before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria in connection with Gogari P.S. Case No. 30 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- i. Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioners tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the
4/4 acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T