Monu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68749 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2024 Thana- TETERHAT District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Monu Kumar S/o Late Vijendra Prasad @ Bijendar Ram R/o VillageAlyanpurdih, P.S.- Athmal Gola, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Anurag Saurav, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP For the informant :
Mr. Bhim Sen Prasad, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 27-01-2025 Heard Mr. Anurag Saurav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhim Sen Prasad, learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Tetarhat P.S. Case No. 98 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 341, 323, 307, 364(A), 120 (B), 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 25.05.2024 by the informant, Md. Ilias.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that Deepak Kumar received a call from the X number for booking of the D.J. whereafter, Deepak Kumar alongwith son of the informant, Md. Mustafa went to the place. After some time, Deepak Kumar returned alleging that the person who had made
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68749 of 2024(4) dt.27-01-2025 2/3 a call for booking D.J. was sitting in the Baleno Car forcibly took them inside and assaulted. He anyhow managed to escape but Md. Mustafa has been taken away. Later, through another mobile number Y, a ransom of Rs. 15,00,000/- was made. Deepak Kumar was taken to Sadar Hospital, Lakhisarai, FIR was lodged.
4. Subsequently, the Police acted swiftly and moving on the mobile numbers that were part of the record from which calls were made, culprits apprehended, Md. Mustafa rescued and the accused were arrested.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that though he was picked up on the same day and also confessed to the crime, the same was before the police and is inadmissible in law.
6. Mr. Bhim Sen Prasad, learned counsel representing the informant submits that the entire details are there in his confessional statement where he has described that being in economic crisis, they wanted to do something big and in the process, kidnapped for ransom. The further submission is that the other accused, namely, Shavan Kumar & others have been denied relief in Cr. Misc. No. 58396 of 2024 and analogous cases.
7. Having gone through the facts of the case and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68749 of 2024(4) dt.27-01-2025 3/3 materials on record as also the submissions, the police acted swiftly and the same resulted into not only the arrest of the accused person including this petitioner, the kidnapped person was also recovered. The petitioner played an important role in the said kidnapping, it reflects from the earlier order of rejection of Shravan Kumar (supra) case. In that background, no relief can be granted.
8. Accordingly, the bail petition stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U T