Vijay Kumar Sahni @ Vijay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89388 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-179 Year-2024 Thana- PURAINI District- Madhepura ====================================================== Vijay Kumar Sahni @ Vijay Kumar, Son of Yadunandan Sahni, Resident of Village- Puraini Bazar, Ward No. 05, P.S.- Puraini, District- Madhupura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate Ms. Pooja Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 21-02-2025 Heard Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 140(2), 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the grandson of the informant namely, Satyam Kumar was kidnapped by miscreants for ransom when the informant went to his godown, he did not found his grandson. The neighbours told that there were six to seven miscreants on three bikes, they disclosed the name of this petitioner along with others.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case. He has got no criminal

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89388 of 2024(3) dt.21-02-2025 2/2 antecedent. It is further submitted that in this case, the victim was recovered and has given his Statement under Section 183 of the BNSS and has stated that he was being kidnapped by six to seven miscreants and has stated that he can identify Basuki, Medho and Rajeev, he cannot identify others. Petitioner is not named by the victim. From perusal of the case diary, it transpires that no TIP has been conducted. It is further submitted that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 11.09.2024.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with Puraini P.S. Case No. 179 of 2024 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, I, Udakishunganj, Madhepura.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) durgesh/- U T