Satyendra Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.53278 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -223 Year- 2015 Thana -BARGANIA District- SITAMARHI ====================================================== Satyendra Thakur, S/o Mahesh Thakur, Resident of Village- Bel, P.S. Bairagania, District- Sitamarhi.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate.

Mr. Raj Bansh Dubey, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party : Ms. Renu Kumari, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 03-04-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Bairagania P.S. Case No. 223 of 2015, registered for the offences punishable under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant alleged that from mobile no.

8731928118, a call was made on his mobile no. 9973029103 and extortion of Rs. 5 lakhs was demanded.

Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. The ransom was demanded from mobile no. 8731928118 and from the CDR it would appear that the aforesaid SIM was issued in the name of Hari Kishore Singh of Basbadia Chowk, Soalling Road, Mohanpur, Sitamarhi with landline number 06226-253490. Hari

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53278 of 2016 (5) dt.03-04-2017 2/2 Kishore Singh was not apprehended and there is no material to show that the petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid SIM, but from perusal of the case diary as well as the report it appears that SIM No. 8731928118 was used in the mobile set having IMEI No. 356811027824650. The CDR of IMEI No. 356811027824650 was obtained and it transpired that SIM No. 9135905409 was also used in the aforesaid handset for demanding extortion and that number belongs to Satyendra Thakur, the petitioner. From perusal of paragraph-3 of the case diary, it appears that about a dozen cases of similar nature and even more heinous offences registered under Sections 302, 394 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code in which the petitioner is accused.

Considering the facts aforesaid I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial, hold the same on day-to-day basis and conclude within six months from the date of receipt of this order. If the trial is not concluded within six months, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T