Yuvraj Naveen Singh @ Naveen Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11830 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -64 Year- 2017 Thana -BETTIAH CITY DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ====================================================== Yuvraj Naveen Singh @ Naveen Singh, Son of Braj Kishore Singh. resident of New Colony, Dak Bunglow Road, Bettiah, P.S.- Bettiah Nagar, District- West Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate For the State : Smt. Sharda Kumari, APP For the Informant : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 20-04-2017 Heard the parties.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Nagar Bettiah P.S. Case No. 64 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under sections 387, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. Allegation against the petitioner and other accused persons is of demanding extortion of Rs. 10,000/- and there is also allegation against the petitioner of firing.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he has been falsely implicated due to business rivalry and that the petitioner has himself lodged a case against the informant of the case which was

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11830 of 2017 (4) dt.20-04-2017 not registered by the Police and thereafter he filed complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran for demanding extortion of Rs. 15,000/- by the informant. It has been submitted by Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the informant that the complaint case is nothing but defence created by the accused persons to save skin from the present case and the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution during the course of investigation. Having heard both sides and in view of the direct allegation of demand of extortion coupled with the fact that there is allegation of firing by the petitioner, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner rather the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks and make prayer for regular bail, which will be considered by the learned court below without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) S.Sb/- U T