Raj Kishor Prasad v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66920 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-207 Year-2024 Thana- JAKKANPUR District- Patna ====================================================== 1.
Raj Kishor Prasad Son of Late Hardeo Ram Resident of Mohalla - Mithapur B Area, Nehru Lane, Police Station - Jakkanpur, District - Patna. 2.
Chintu Kumar Son of Sri Raj Kishor Prasad Resident of Mohalla - Mithapur B Area, Nehru Lane, Police Station - Jakkanpur, District - Patna. 3.
Prakash Kumar Son of Sri Raj Kishor Prasad Resident of Mohalla - Mithapur B Area, Nehru Lane, Police Station - Jakkanpur, District - Patna. 4.
Deepak Kumar @ Sunil Kumar Son of Sri Raj Kishor Prasad Resident of Mohalla - Mithapur B Area, Nehru Lane, Police Station - Jakkanpur, District - Patna.
5.
Raju Kumar Son of Sri Mahesh Prasad Resident of Mohalla - Mithapur B Area, Nehru Lane, Police Station - Jakkanpur, District - Patna. 6.
Monu Kumar @ Amit Kumar Son of Sri Raj Kumar Prasad Resident of Mohalla - Ram Das Path, Mithapur B Area, Police Station - Jakkanpur, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sunil Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ram Sevak Choudhary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in a case instituted for the offence punishable under
2/4 Sections 341, 323, 324, 384, 354(B), 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that while the informant's daughter had gone outside to fetch some items, the petitioners intercepted her and demanded a sum of ₹5,00,000 (Rupees five lakh) as extortion. It is further alleged that petitioner no. 2, Chintu Kumar, threatened her with an acid attack. Thereafter, the petitioners forcibly entered the informant's house and began abusing her family members. When the informant and her family members objected, they were physically assaulted by the petitioners. Out of fear, the informant allegedly handed over ₹15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand) to petitioner no. 2, Chintu Kumar. Subsequently, the accused persons ran away from there after giving threats of dire consequences.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. They have falsely been
3/4 implicated in the present case. Both parties are agnates and there is land dispute between them. There is case and counter case between the parties. From perusal of injury report (mentioned in para 35 of the Case Diary), it appears that nobody has sustained grievous injury. Moreover, investigation is completed.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below within a period of four weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrender in connection with Jakkanpur P.S. Case no. 207 of 2024, they will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional
4/4 Chief Judicial Magistrate VIII, Patna, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(S. B. Pd. Singh, J) Nirajkrs/- U T