Hareram Kumar @ Puchuk Kumar @ Puchuk Kumar Mahto v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42151 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1022 Year-2014 Thana- NAGAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Hareram Kumar @ Puchuk Kumar @ Puchuk Kumar Mahto S/O Mathur Mahto R/O Jaypur Dhanushi, P.S- Agamkuan, Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Manoj Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Hajipur Town P.S. Case No. 1022 of 2014 F.I.R dated 24.11.2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 385 & 387 of the Indian Penal Code / Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, on 20.11.2014 at about 11:00 A.M., the informant, Dr. Diwali Prasad, Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Hajipur, allegedly received a threatening call, through Mob. No. 91-7033946931 on his mobile phone, demanding ransom of Rs. 30 lakhs and threatening to kill him if the amount was not paid. It is further alleged that on 15.09.2014, three unknown persons had fired at
2/4 his residence. The informant stated that he was being threatened and pressurized by anti-social elements in connection with discharging of his official duties, particularly medical examinations conducted in criminal cases. Based on this report, the present case was instituted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant had lodged a similar case being Agamkuan P.S. Case No. 369 of 2014, in which this petitioner has been named as accused and has been extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. It is the case of the petitioner that for same and similar allegations the instant case has been lodged against the owner of the Mob. No. 91-7033946931, as is referred in the column no. 7 of the F.I.R., which belongs to one "Ashish Kumar". It has next been submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the instant case merely on the basis of this petitioner being implicated in the earlier case i.e. Agamkuan P.S. Case No. 369 of 2014, while there is nothing specific against this petitioner in the F.I.R. and the name of this petitioner has been transpired on the basis of the confession made by the co-accused Mr. Ashish Kumar. The petitioner has only one antecedent based on which the petitioner has been implicated in the present case.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
3/4 anticipatory bail in respect of this petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid fact that nothing incriminating is said to have been recovered from the constructive possession of the petitioner, neither the mobile no. referred in the F.I.R. belongs to this petitioner nor in-any-way connected with. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender 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) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Hajipur, Vaishali in connection with the aforesaid P.S. Case, 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) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
4/4 (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J) surya/- U T