Purushottam Yadav @ Chhotu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60116 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-120 Year-2020 Thana- GOPALPUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== PURUSHOTTAM YADAV @ CHHOTU YADAV S/o RAM RATTI YADAV R/o VILLAGE-LATARA, P.S- GOPALPUR, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Dr. Indiwar Kumari, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of four weeks after complete start of the physical Court. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 120 of 2020 instituted for the offences under Sections 386 and 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 02.06.2020, charge-sheet has been submitted and has antecedent of twenty cases. The informant alleges that he received a call from mobile no. 7219694788 and 7367055476 on his WhatsApp No. 9955649887 and the caller demanded extortion money of Rs.5,00,000/- on behalf of the petitioner and Rahul Yadav and threatened that if the extortion money is not paid he will be killed

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60116 of 2021(2) dt.10-03-2022 2/2 within five days.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case merely because of his antecedent. From perusal of the allegation, it would manifest that the informant alleges that he received a call asking him to pay extortion money in the name of the petitioner, as such, the petitioner had not made the call. It appears that someone taking advantage in the name of the petitioner had made a false call as no amount of extortion money was paid.

Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody, charge-sheet has been submitted and in the nature of allegation as alleged, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Naugachia, Bhagalpur in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 120 of 2020, with condition that one of the bailors shall be the mother of the petitioner.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T