Rejection of anticipatory bail petition filed by Purushotam Kahar in connection with an extortion case (IPC 384), where the court held the matter was not a fit case for bail due to allegations of attack and death of a relative.
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.26600 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2019 Thana- GOVINDPUR District- Nawada
======================================================
PURUSHOTAM KAHAR S/O LATE JAGDISH KAHAR, R/O VILLAGECHOTHA, POLICE STATION-RAJAULI, DISTRICT-NAWADA.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
| THE STATE OF BIHAR. ==================== |
... ... Opposite Party/s ================================== |
|---|---|
| Appearance : | |
| For the Petitioner/s : |
Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate |
| For the informant : |
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate |
| For the State : ==================== |
Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ================================== |
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 12-05-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019 registered for offence punishable under section 384 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per allegation, the informant received a telephonic call from an unknown number, i.e. 9525144175. The caller demanded Rs.5,00,000/- as ransom and he threatened the informant for dire consequences if he did not pay the demanded money. Again on 29.01.2019, the informant received a call from another mobile No. 9431716758. Again, he was threatened by the person, who made call. The informant disclosed his name as Dharmbir.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26600 of 2021(5) dt.12-05-2022 2/2
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that co-accused, Manoj Kumar Mehta and Jaswant Kumar Mehta were arrested during the course of investigation and they disclosed the name of the present petitioner. He has also submitted that except confessional statement, there is nothing against the petitioner in the entire case diary.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant has submitted that not only the miscreants demanded ransom from the informant, but due to non-fulfillment of the demand, the miscreants, including the petitioner attacked the family members of the informant in which the nephew of the informant died and in this respect, a separate case has been lodged. In that case also, the petitioner has been implicated as an accused. He has also submitted that it is an unauthorized gang and in pursuance of common intention, they committed offence.
Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
Mahesh/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the case is a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.
Whether the petitioner's apprehension of arrest warrants anticipatory bail.
Purushotam Kahar
The State of Bihar
Nawneet Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
