Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE VIA VIDEO APPLICATION) CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3468 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2019 Thana- BAIKUNTHPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== SONU KUMAR S/o Dhrupdeo Rai R/o village- Pakaha, P.S.- Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravi Bhushan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kalyan Shankar, A.P.P.

For the Informant :

Mr. Shekhar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 09-04-2021 Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove all the defects as pointed out by office within four weeks after start of normal functioning of the Court.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kalyan Shankar, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

Petitioner in the present case is seeking regular bail in connection with Baikunthpur P.S. Case No. 24 of 2019 registered for the offence under Section 363, 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant has reported the Police that his son is missing from the evening of 27.1.2019 and on search no trace came out. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that during investigation petitioner was arrested on the basis of statement

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3468 of 2021(2) dt.09-04-2021 2/2 of co-accused Birendra Prasad Yadav who has been admitted to bail by a learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The petitioner is in custody since 02.02.2019.

Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner. It is submitted that during investigation it has come that the petitioner was demanding the ransom and on his confession the dead body of the victim boy was recovered.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case wherein from the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it appears that the name of the petitioner has transpired in this case as the person who was demanding the ransom for release of the kidnapped son of the informant and further on his statement the mobile phone and the ropes which were used for killing of the son of the informant as also the dead body has been recovered, the allegation being serious and the materials placed before this Court are such that this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is, thus, refused.

Let the trial be expedited.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) vats/- U T Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.