Md. Salman Aziz @ Chand Babu @ Chand Mohammad v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88345 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-720 Year-2024 Thana- SIKARPUR District- West Champaran ====================================================== Md. Salman Aziz @ Chand Babu @ Chand Mohammad Son of Mansoor Alam village- Heerapakad, Ps- Manuapul, Dist- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 08-05-2025 Heard Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Shikarpur P.S. Case No. 720 of 2024 for the offence under sections 140(2) of the B.N.S. lodged on 13.10.2024 by the informant, Gayatri Devi.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that due to delivery of her daughter-in-law, she was busy all through the day, while her son Aditya Kumar left hospital, but could not be found. Later she got a call from mobile number XXXXXX7924 as also from mobile number XXXXXX9824 informing that his son has been kidnapped, she could hear the weeping of her son. The demand was of Rs.10 lakh with the threatening that if the same is not handed over, he will be killed. This led to the FIR.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88345 of 2024(3) dt.08-05-2025 2/2
4. The contention of the petitioner as submitted by learned counsel is that subsequently the son returned, one Pappu Kumar was apprehended and he has given the name of this petitioner. He submits that he had enimical term with Pappu Kumar and only to implicate, the name has come.
5. Learned APP for the Start, on the other hand, has taken this Court to paragraph 3 to show that he has multiple criminal antecedents and in that background, the main accused has named him, certainly, he does not deserve anticipatory bail.
6. Taking into account the submissions of the parties as also the kind of allegation that has come against the petitioner coupled with the fact that he has criminal antecedent, in that background, this Court does not inclined to extent the relief.
7. The anticipatory bail stands rejected.
8. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today and seeks regular bail, the learned Court below would pass the order, without being prejudiced by this order. (Rajiv Roy, J) anand/- U T