Manu Dubey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67256 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-97 Year-2022 Thana- JANTA BAZAR District- Saran ====================================================== MANU DUBEY Son of Basisth Dubey Resident of Village- Darhibari, P.S.- Baniapur, District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Harsh Anuj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Pushpa Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Janta Bazar P.S. Case No. 97 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 383, 384, 387, 120B, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of four cases and is in custody since 01.06.2022.

The informant alleges that his nephew received call of extortion on his mobile, the caller demanded an extortion of Rs. 3 Lakhs and when his nephew disclosed his

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67256 of 2022(2) dt.29-04-2023 2/3 inability to pay then on 19.12.2021 the accused persons came at his medicine shop and started firing, for which an F.I.R was instituted against unknown, it is next alleged that again on 27.04.2022 two accused persons came at his shop and started firing and the occurrence was captured in the C.C.T.V. It is further alleged that on 29.04.2022 a call on the mobile of the informant came and the caller was demanding an extortion of Rs. 6 Lakhs failing which he will have to face dire consequences.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, it is next submitted that his name transpired based on suspicion. It is also submitted that petitioner was not captured in the footage of C.C.T.V and thus has been falsely implicated.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that though it is submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was not captured in the C.C.T.V, but then the same is not pleaded in the bail application.

Considering the submission made by the learned

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67256 of 2022(2) dt.29-04-2023 3/3 A.P.P, the Court, for the present, is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail six months after framing of charge. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T