Sinchu @ Sinchu Kumar @ Kundan Sharma v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 26243 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -83 Year- 2016 Thana -PALIGANJ District- PATNA =========================================================== Sinchu @ Sinchu Kumar @ Kundan Sharma, Son of Mahesh Singh, Resident of Village- Fatehpur, P.S.- Paliganj, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Md. A. H. Sahara, A.P.P.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 01-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in Paliganj P.S. Case No. 83 of 2016 dated 07.05.2016 instituted under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had demanded extortion money from the informant on telephone, while he was still in jail.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when he was in jail, his wife had come to visit him and during such visit, he rang up the informant from the mobile phone and demanded Rs. 20,000/- which the informant had taken as loan from the father of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that he has been falsely
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26243 of 2017 dt.01-07-2017 2/2 implicated.
5. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the explanation given by the petitioner is not worthy of belief for the reason that where already there is difference between the parties, it cannot be expected that there would be cordial relationship and loan would be given and further when admittedly the loan was given by the father of the petitioner, who was still alive, there was no occasion for the petitioner, who was accused in a case under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to intervene which shows that he was trying to flex his muscles and exert undue pressure on the informant.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
7. The application, accordingly, stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U T