Kameshwar Rai @ Kamleshwar Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53126 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-562 Year-2023 Thana- GORAUL District- Vaishali ====================================================== Kameshwar Rai @ Kamleshwar Rai Son of Late Bhole Rai Resident of VillNarayanpur Bedauliya, P.S.- Goraul, District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shanti Bhushan Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 30-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Goraul P.S. Case No. 562 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 384, 387, 427, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Allegedly, due to previous dispute regarding extortion amount, on order of the petitioner, the other FIR named accused persons put JCB bearing registration no. BR 06GE 3651 on fire causing loss of Rs. 30,00,000/-. They also damaged Hyva Tractor and assaulted its driver and threatened the informant to give extortion of Rs. 25,00,000/- or he will not be allowed to work on the said land.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53126 of 2024(3) dt.30-08-2024 2/2 that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is totally false and based on concocted facts. He has been made accused in the present case due to political rivalry and also high handedness of the police. From bare perusal of the FIR, it is evident that there is no specific overt act against the petitioner. He was mere an order giver in the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has two criminal antecedents and he is in custody since 13.04.2024.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as considering the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T