Rohit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 50071 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-469 Year-2020 Thana- SAHEBGANJ District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== GUDDU KUMAR Son of Late Vinod Sah Resident of Village - Sitalpatti, P.S.- Siwaipatti, District - Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 54925 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-469 Year-2020 Thana- SAHEBGANJ District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== ROHIT KUMAR SON OF MR. MUNILAL RAI RESIDENT OF VILLAGEJIRATI TOLA, P.S.- SAHEBGANJ, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 50071 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Karandeep Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anand Kishore Chaudhary, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 54925 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 24-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The two petitioners in the two applications have prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Sahebganj P.S. Case no. 469 of 2020 registered under sections 364A, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, the 11 year old son of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 50071 of 2021(3) dt.24-03-2022 2/3 informant was kidnapped. Subsequently the informant received a telephone call on his mobile phone making a demand of ransom to the tune of Rs. 1 crore.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR was registered against the holder of the mobile no. 7352806100. The son of the informant was recovered and his statement was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that although the victim has named one person by the name Guddu in his statement, but the same cannot be said to be the petitioner herein and the petitioner has not been put on T.I. parade. The petitioners are in custody since 4.9.2020. Heard learned APP for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the materials on record, it transpires that the statement of the victim was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C wherein he stated that the son of his chachera maternal uncle, namely, Rohit Kumar (petitioner herein) gave him Rs. 10 and asked him to go and get Rs. 30,000/- from motorcycle borne person. On going near them, he was kidnapped by the two accused persons and the victim identified his two kidnappers to be Guddu (petitioner herein) and Dilip.

So far as the grant of bail to the other co-accused

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 50071 of 2021(3) dt.24-03-2022 3/3 persons including Ragani, Munilal Rai and Rahul Kumar are concerned, the opinion of the Court is that the case of petitioners are distinguishable from the same.

In the facts of the case, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail and both the applications are rejected.

The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial. (Partha Sarthy, J) Spd/- U T