Guddu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 52283 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -39 Year- 2015 Thana -LAXMIPUR District- JAMUI ====================================================== Guddu Yadav, Son of Yugo Yadav @ Yugal Yadav, resident of VillageFoxa, P.S.- Jhajha, District- Jamui. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Najmul Hoda, Mr. Arjun Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.
07-12-2015 Heard Mr. Najmul Hoda, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Arjun Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The petitioner, who is in custody since 09-06-2015 in Laxmipur (Giddhour) P.S. Case No. 39 of 2015 registered for the offence under Sections 364(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of bail.
It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that ofcourse, kidnapping was alleged, no ransom was demanded and in the same night of the occurrence, the victim was released. His statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which, he disclosed the name of petitioner and other accused persons, but he has not disclosed regarding demand of any ransom. On
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52283 of 2015 (2) dt.07-12-2015 2/2 aforesaid ground, it has been prayed for grant of bail. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that besides present case, the petitioner is accused in one another case also. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said case was instituted in an offence under Arms Act, in which, the petitioner is already on bail.
In view of nature of accusation as well as the fact that the petitioner is accused in one another case and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there is no reason to extend the privilege of bail.
The petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T