Rahul Yadav @ Rahul Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76547 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-120 Year-2020 Thana- GOPALPUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Rahul Yadav @ Rahul Kumar Yadav Sono f Kailash Yadav @ Faison Yadav R/O Vill.- Latra, P.S.- Gopalpur, Dist.- Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms. Nirmala Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-01-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 120 of 2020 instituted for the offences under Sections 386 and 387 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of eleven cases and is in custody since 02.08.2024 and the informant alleges that he received a call from mobile no. 7219694788 and 7367055476 on his WhatsApp No. 9955649887 and the caller demanded extortion money of Rs.5,00,000/- on behalf of the Purushottam Yadav and petitioner and threatened that if extortion money is not paid, he would be killed within five days.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76547 of 2024(2) dt.18-01-2025 2/3 petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case merely because of his antecedent, it is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged, it would manifest that the informant alleges that he received a call asking him to pay extortion money in the name of petitioner, as such, the petitioner had not made the call. It is also submitted that even the mobile number does not belong to the petitioner. It is next submitted that It appears that someone taking advantage in the name of the petitioner had made a false call as no amount of extortion money was paid. It is also submitted that charges in the case against the petitioner have been framed.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class Naugachia, Bhagalpur in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 120 of 2020.
7. However, it is made clear that if the learned Trial Court comes to a conclusion that petitioner, after his release, is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76547 of 2024(2) dt.18-01-2025 3/3 trying to delay the trial in any manner, in that event, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner forthwith after recording reasons. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T