Amit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71824 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-658 Year-2022 Thana- BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== Amit Kumar Son of Deo Chandra Singh @ Devendra Singh R/O VillageAmaraur, P.S.- Singhaul, District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP For O.P. No. 2 Mr. Gouranga Chatterjee, Adv.

Mr. Nilanjan Chatterjee, Adv.

Mr. Ujjwal Raj, Adv.

Mr. Sahil Kumar, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 06-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, opposite party no. 2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 387, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Petitioner along with other accused persons are said to have demanded Rangdari Tax of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the informant and in case of non-fulfillment of demand, he would be killed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute. He submits that the present case is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71824 of 2024(2) dt.06-12-2024 2/2 counter blast of Muffasil Singhaul P.S. Case No. 622 of 2022. He submits that the present FIR has been lodged after delay of 10 days and there is no satisfactory explanation has been given for the said delay. He submits that Section 387 of the IPC is not attracted against the petitioner. He submits that there is general and omnibus allegation levelled against the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner has five criminal antecedents as stated in para-3 of the bail application and he is languishing in judicial custody since 20.06.2024.

5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposing the prayer for bail submit that the petitioner has five criminal antecedents.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner has five criminal antecedent, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected in connection with Begusarai Muffasil P.S. Case No. 658 of 2022.

7. However, petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) devendra/- U T