Sanjeev Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52762 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2024 Thana- BODHGAYA District- Gaya ====================================================== Sanjeev Kumar Son Of Rajendra Prasad Village- Chulhay Bigha, PoManjaur, Ps- Warisaliganj, Dist- Nawada ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Shankar Kumar For the Opposite Party :
Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-09-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Bodhgaya P.S. Case No. 74 of 2024 dated 12.02.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364A/34 of the I.P.C. Later on, Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act were also added.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 11.02.2014 at about 2.30 P.M., the son of the informant, namely, Shyam Singh @ Prince, aged about 15 years, took Rs. 50/- and informed that he was going to the village- Bhusanda and he would return by the evening. When his son did not return in the evening, the informant started to call him on his mobile but his mobile was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52762 of 2024(3) dt.19-09-2024 2/3 found switched off. Thereafter, the informant tried to search him in the native village. At 9.18 P.M., a call was received on Mobile No. 6206134917 from the Mobile No. 6287668958 and was informed that his son has been kidnapped and demand of Rs. 40,00,000/- was made from the informant. The threat was also given that if he would not give the said money then his son would be killed. It is further alleged that the informant suspected that Rishav Kumar Singh, Durga Yadav, Lalu Yadav, Sanki Manjhi and Jogindra Yadav and some other persons kidnapped the informant's son under conspiracy as there was previous land dispute between them.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The name of the petitioner has sprung up in the confessional statement of the co-accused. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner and the informant's son is known to each other. The petitioner has clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 13.02.2024.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52762 of 2024(3) dt.19-09-2024 3/3 State has further submitted that in paragraph no. 22 and 31 of the case diary, it has been mentioned that the petitioner and the co-accused persons were arrested by the police with the victim. As per para. 18 of the case diary, one desi katta and injections were recovered from the car.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the heinous nature of allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the same is rejected in connection with Bodhgaya P.S. Case No. 74 of 2024, pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Gaya.
7. The application stands rejected.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) atul/- U T