Manish Kumar @ Manish Sharma @ Matru Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77366 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2024 Thana- HULASGANJ District- Jehanabad ====================================================== 1.

Manish Kumar @ Manish Sharma @ Matru Sharma S/O Ramnath Sharma Resident of village- Chotiyan, P.S- Mahkar, Distt.- Gaya. 2.

Kewal Singh @ Kewal Kumar @ Kebal Kumar @ Kabal Kumar S/O Lal Narayan Sharma Resident of village- Chotiyan, P.S- Mahkar, Distt.- Gaya. ... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Aryan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Abhay Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

2. Petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 364A, 386/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, petitioners abducted driver and khalasi of the informant along with truck loaded with iron blade for ransom.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that informant is not the victim and so far victims are concerned, they have not lodged the FIR. As per the FIR, incident took place on 17.03.2024 at 2.00 A.M. after which victims were abducted, but the informant nowhere states that how he got knowledge of abduction. It is further submitted that when the alleged truck was stopped by police, driver, in place of calling informant being owner of the truck for giving knowledge about penalty levied by the R.T.O. he surprisingly called one of his associates, namely, Manoj Kumar for payment of the penalty. As a matter of fact, truck of the informant was seized

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77366 of 2024(4) dt.03-03-2025 2/2 by police on 17.03.2024 at 2.06 A.M. for which the fine was paid on 28.03.2024 at 4.26 P.M. vide Receipt No. 19424.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail. He submits that petitioners are named in the FIR with specific allegation that these petitioners abducted driver and khalasi of the informant along with truck loaded with iron blade for ransom.

6. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation, prayer for bail of the petitioners is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T