Dilip Yadav @ Dilip Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10796 of 2016 (3) dt.27-04-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.10796 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -626 Year- 2015 Thana -KHAGARIA District- KHAGARIA ======================================================

1. Dilip Yadav @ Dilip Kumar S/o Late Sukhdeo Yadav resident of Mohalla - Hajipur, P.S. Khagaria, District - Khagaria .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 27-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Khagaria P.S. Case No. 626 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, Raju @ Akshay Kumar, the son of the informant and his friend Rupesh Kumar were kidnapped by motorcycle borne criminals and further from the father of Raju ransom of Rs. 2,00,000/- was demanded. During investigation Sunny Kumar, Dipu Kumar and Nikesh Kumar were apprehended and the informant claimed that they have demanded the ransom and further Sunny Kumar confessing his guilt stated whereabouts of the victim boys and then both the victim boys were recovered from licensee wine shop of the petitioner.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10796 of 2016 (3) dt.27-04-2016 Submission is of false implication and that the alleged recovery of two victim boys from the shop of the petitioner, is no ground to implicate the petitioner as the petitioner was not having any knowledge, the victims have not stated the name of the petitioner, the petitioner is simply a licensee wine shopkeeper and he without having any criminal history, suffering in custody since 11.02.2016.

The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that Santosh Kumar has stated that he was working under this petitioner and the petitioner has knowledge about the occurrence which is mentioned in para 29 of the case diary. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the alleged recovery of two victim boys from the shop of the petitioner and further considering the statement of Santosh Kumar, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. However, considering the detention of the petitioner let the trial be expedited and concluded preferably within nine months after receipt/ production of a copy of this order. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) sushma/- U T