Izhar Alam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.36564 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -345 Year- 2016 Thana -JOGAPATTI DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ======================================================

1. Izhar Alam Son of Jumma Dewan, R/o Village- Fatepur (Phatepur), P.S.- Jogapatti, District- West Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Shrivastava For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Kumar Virendra Narayan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 06-09-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Jogapatti P.S. Case No. 345 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 12.04.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 9387 of 2017 but, thereafter, coaccused Manish Sah @ Manish Kumar and Nasrullah Shah @ Nasrulah Shah have been granted bail vide order dated 28.03.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 7707 of 2017 and Cr. Misc. No. 11255 of 2017. Co-accused Anil Kumar was granted bail vide order dated 12.04.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 17316 of 2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36564 of 2017 (2) dt.06-09-2017 the case of the petitioner stands on the same footing as that of other co-accused who have already been granted bail. There is no allegation of demand of extortion and simply it is a bailable offence as a case of taking a boy to the station can be made out but, from the FIR it appears that the informant got call from mobile no. 8083271734 and the caller demanded extortion of Rs. 5 lakhs from the father of the victim and also threatened to kill the boy if ransom was not paid. During course of investigation Manish Sah @ Manish Kumar was apprehended and he disclosed the name of the petitioner and others.

The petitioner was immediately thereafter arrested and in pursuance of his confession the boy was recovered by the police and the mobile from which ransom was demanded was also recovered from the co-accused Sonu. It is a case of kidnapping for ransom and the name of the petitioner figured in the confession of Manish Sah @ Manish Kumar. Thereafter, on the disclosure made by the petitioner the boy was recovered from the railway station. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) KKSINHA/- U T