Shankar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64210 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2021 Thana- KURTHA District- Jehanabad ====================================================== SHANKAR YADAV Son of Kamla Yadav Resident of Village - Bhikhanpur, P.s.- Koch, Distt.- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Harendra Prasad, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-03-2022 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 bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 385, 387 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 11 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 13.08.2021, charge-sheet has been submitted and has antecedent of four cases.

The informant alleges that he received extortion call from an unknown mobile no. 8541802628 on his mobile and the caller disclosed that he is a member of Moist cadre and asked to send the extortion amount to Kinjer or Ataulah, failing which he will be killed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64210 of 2021(2) dt.30-03-2022 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and it absolutely does not stand to reason that a person would call from his mobile and seek extortion and thus create an evidence against him. It is further submitted that if what has been alleged in the FIR is true then the FIR does not disclose the extortion amount which also castes aspersion on the prosecution story that as to whether extortion was demanded or not. Learned counsel further submits that merely because petitioner has antecedent, as such, he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

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 taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with Kurtha P.S. Case No. 06 of 2021. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T