Monu Kumar Suman v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79536 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-540 Year-2023 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Monu Kumar Suman Son of Sunil Kumar Suman Resident of VillageKataiya Goth (Sattar Kataiya), Ward No 12, PS- Pipra, District- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashwani Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 04-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Madhepura P.S. Case No. 540 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 386 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The petitioner along with other co-accused is said to have taken the vehicle of the informant on hire and in lieu of returning the said vehicle they demanded extortion money of Rs.2 lakhs.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner has no knowledge about the vehicle in question. He had gone with the co-accused Satish Kumar in capacity of driver. The allegation levelled against the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79536 of 2024(2) dt.04-12-2024 2/2 petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. The allegation of taking the vehicle and demanding the extortion money was levelled against co-accused, Satish Kumar. Petitioner has two criminal antecedents as mentioned in para-2 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that considering the nature of the allegation, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the seriousness of the allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail, the learned Court below would pass order on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

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