An oral order dismissing a petition for anticipatory bail. The petitioner was apprehended for offences under Section 385 IPC, Section 27 Arms Act, and other sections alleging extortion and intimidation, noting the significant delay between the FIR and the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.7520 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -90 Year- 2009 Thana -AMDABAD District- KATIHAR
======================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Meena Singh
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
3 08-03-2017 Heard both sides.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Amdabad P.S. Case No. 90/2009, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 385 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The informant named the petitioners along with other accused persons and alleged that while he was going along with his son, petitioners surrounded him and pointed pistol at him. All the accused persons including the petitioners brutally assaulted the informant and his son and demanded extortion of Rs. 3,000/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners. The petitioners are
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7520 of 2017 (3) dt.08-03-2017
2/2
resident of different places, but the informant on account of enmity named the petitioners. This fact shows falsity of the case.
From perusal of the case diary, it appears that the informant named the petitioners and alleged that they demanded extortion from the informant. The case was lodged in the year 2009 and after eight years the petitioners filed petition for anticipatory bail.
Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.)
Rakhi
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in a case involving extortion and pointed pistol allegations lodged after an eight-year gap.
Whether the alleged delay and enmity between the informant and petitioners establish the falsity of the FIR warranting bail.
Md. Jalal @ Jalla and Md. Najir
The State of Bihar
Prabhat Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
