Suman Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57761 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-170 Year-2023 Thana- KARJAIN District- Supaul ====================================================== SUMAN YADAV S/O SURESH PARSAILA @ SURESH MANGARDAITA R/O DAULATPUR, P.S- RAGHOPUR AND P.S- RAGHOPUR AND DISTT.- SUPAUL ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjeev Verma, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dilip Kumar No.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 11-09-2024 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1, learned APP for the State. 2.

Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Karjain P.S. Case No.170 of 2023, registered for the offence punishable u/s 341, 323, 385, 386, 506, 504, 379, 307, 34 IPC. 3.

Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused persons demanded extortion of Rs.2 Lakh from the informant and when the informant shown disability to fulfill the same, they threatened and jointly assaulted the informant.

4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57761 of 2024(2) dt.11-09-2024 2/2 motive. No such occurrence in the manner as alleged has ever taken place. It is submitted that from perusal of the injury report, it is clear that the injuries of the informant were found simple in nature. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. It is further submitted that during investigation, the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Petitioner has seven criminal antecedent. 5.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that there is allegation against the petitioner. 6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the nature of allegation and the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected. 7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T