Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64177 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-313 Year-2019 Thana- KESARIA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Sonu Kumar Son of Vinod Sah Resident of Village - Koilam @ Koilwan, P.S.- Kalyanpur, Distt.- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Devendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-01-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in Kesariya P.S. Case No. 313 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 365 of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant alleged that on 22.06.2019, Raushan Yadav and Praveen Kumar took her son for work of videography, but her son did not return till 24.06.2019. Thereafter, she inquired about her son from Navin Yadav brother of Praveen Kumar. Navin Yadav demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- and said that if she will give him the said amount, he will return her son. The informant suspected that all the three accused person committed murder of her son for money. It is submitted that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64177 of 2019(3) dt.24-01-2020 2/2 victim boy was not recovered from him. Petitioner is in custody since 01.07.2019 having clean antecedent.
It appears from perusal of statement of victim boy under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that the boy had specifically taken name of Sonu Kumar this petitioner and one Babu Saheb who confined him in a room and it were the persons who demanded money from his mother on the mobile phone.
In view of the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C and the fact that there is specific allegation against this petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T