Kanhaiya Ram @ Guddu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.13643 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -292 Year- 2016 Thana -SASARAM NAGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== KANHAIYA RAM @ GUDDU Son of Paras Ram @ Paras Nath Ram, Resident of Village- Chalharua, Police Station- Chenari, District- Rohtas at Sasaram.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ahtash Ali Khan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 02-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sasaram (Town) P.S. Case No. 292 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 386/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, ransom was being demanded from the informant with mobile Nos. 9155580065, 8757749026 and 8804150760. The accused persons were demanding ransom of Rs. one lakh, otherwise threatened to kill him. On 28.02.2016, as it is evident, at about 7.30 P.M. two young persons came and asked about the informant. Then the informant asked them as to why

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13643 of 2017 (2) dt.02-05-2017 2/3 they are asking him, whereupon they started abusing him and told why you have not deposited the ransom amount. Then the informant caught one of them and raised alarm and another boy fled away. Mohalla people also came there and apprehended person stated his name as Pramod Ram and further stated the name of the petitioner and one Dharmjeet Singh.

Submission is of false implication and that there is no confessional statement of Pramod Ram. There is contradiction in the F.I.R. At one place it is stated that two boys have come and at other place it has been stated that three persons came and as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration for bail. Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail by submitting that the name of the petitioner has come at once as named by Pramod Ram at spot. One motorcycle was also recovered from Pramod Ram. From perusal of the impugned order it will reveal that the informant has compromised the case with Dharamjeet Singh.

In the facts and circumstances, as stated above, considering that co-accused Pramod Ram has taken the name of the petitioner and besides that there is no other material against the petitioner, as such, the petitioner, in the event of his arrest or surrender within four weeks from the date of receipt/ production

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13643 of 2017 (2) dt.02-05-2017 3/3 of a copy of this order, shall 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 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Sasaram (Town) P.S. Case No. 292 of 2016, subject to the conditions as laid down in Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) BTiwary/- U T