Deepak Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56238 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-251 Year-2022 Thana- NIRMALI District- Supaul ====================================================== DEEPAK RAY S/o- UMESH RAY Village- Dighiya W. No-5, Ps- Nirmali Dist- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nafisuzzoha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Arvind Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 29-08-2023 Heard Mr. Nafisuzzoha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Nirmali P.S. Case No. 251 of 2022 registered for the offences under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 11.12.2022 by the informant, Md. Shahzad.

As per the allegation, the informant was moving with the cash to purchase cock from the market, midway the accused persons blocked the road with their respective motorcycles and specific allegation against this petitioner is that he threatened and wanted cock immediately and on the injured's request that he is going to purchase it and will be providing him on return, infuriated, he brutally assaulted the informant by belt as also by bamboo clump. When the locals tried to stop him, they too were

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56238 of 2023(2) dt.29-08-2023 2/2 threatened whereafter allegation is of relieving him of Rs. 50,000/-. Accordingly, the FIR.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that both are known to each other and the case has been exaggerated. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, has drawn the attention of this Court to show that half a dozen cases of same nature is/are lodged against the petitioner. Considering the allegation that has come against the petitioner as also that he has criminal antecedents, for the present, this Court is not inclined to extend him privilege of bail, which is accordingly rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Neha/- U T