Patna High CourtCR. MISC./28220/2018rejected

Devendra Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2018-07-19Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.28220 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -201 Year- 2017 Thana -SHEOHAR District- SHEOHAR ======================================================

1. Devendra Ram, son of Badri Ram, Resident of Village- Kherwa Darp, P.S.- Sheohar, District- Sheohar.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner is in custody in connection with Sheohar P.S. Case No.201 of 2017, a case under Section 384/386/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheohar. Two unknown persons allegedly demanded ransom from the informant on mobile call. The informant confidentially located that those persons are Sanjeet Ram and Sanjay Patel. Thereafter, both the aforesaid person on 13.10.2017 came to the brick kiln of the informant along with others and demanded ransom along with some pamphlet of extremists. Thereafter, the Munsi of the informant paid Rs.25,000/- to this petitioner. Munsi

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28220 of 2018 (4) dt.19-07-2018 P2/ of the informant has stated the aforesaid fact before the police. Submission is that the petitioner is in custody since 06.11.2017. Co-accused Sanjeet Kumar has already been allowed bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 17298 of 2018. Further submission is that the dates mentioned in the FIR would create doubt regarding the manner of demand subsequent to the date of payment of ransom.

Considering the entire facts of this case as well as direct evidence against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail is refused. However, he may renew his prayer for bail after framing of the charge or after completion of one year of custody whichever is earlier.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./- U T