Allowed

Sanny Kumar @ Saket Priyadarshi v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC17 Oct 2022CR. MISC./32120/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court granted bail to the petitioner in a criminal case involving assault, ransom demand, and theft. The court considered the petitioner's clean antecedents, innocence claim, and the fact that the charge sheet was filed as grounds for release on bail with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the same amount each.

Sanny Kumar @ Saket Priyadarshi Vs the State of Bihar — Property and Title | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32120 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-606 Year-2021 Thana- SIKARPUR District- West Champaran

¶3

======================================================

¶4

SANNY KUMAR @ SAKET PRIYADARSHI S/o Vinay Shankar Ram R/o Village-Hardiya, Harijan Tufani Colony, Ward No.-20, P.S.-Shikarpur, District-West Champaran.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prashant Kumar : Mr.Manaur Alam : Mr.Kumar Rajdeep For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Aditya Narayan Singh.1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶8

2 17-10-2022

¶9

Let the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶11

A.P.P. for the State.

¶12

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Shikarpur P.S. Case No. 606/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 324, 307, 379/384, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

As per prosecution case, the petitioner and others are alleged to have assaulted the informant and demanded Rs.25,000/- as ransom. It is further alleged that the petitioner has snatched Rs.1125/- and one mobile phone from the

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32120 of 2022(2) dt.17-10-2022 2/3

¶15

informant.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is languishing in custody since 05.04.2022 and bears no criminal antecedent. The date of occurrence is 02.11.2021 whereas FIR has been lodged on 03.11.2021. He further submits that as per FIR, it appears that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner to give injury to the informant or anyone, hence Section 307 of the I.P.C. is not made out. The petitioner is a student who is preparing for competitive examination after completing ITI. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically submits that charge sheet has been submitted in this case and there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence.

¶17

The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, period of custody, argument advanced on behalf of both sides, charge sheet has already been submitted in this case and there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence as submitted and keeping in view clean antecedent of petitioner and also taking into consideration the material available on

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32120 of 2022(2) dt.17-10-2022 3/3

¶20

record, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with Shikarpur P.S. Case No. 606/2021, subject to following conditions:-

¶21

(i) One of the bailors shall be either father or mother or sister or brother or wife or the person who has sworn the affidavit in bail application.

¶22

(ii) Petitioner will co-operate in trial and will remain present on all dates and absence for two consecutive dates without appropriate permission, would be a ground for cancellation of bail by the learned Trial court itself.

¶23

(iii) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶24

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶25

amitkumar/-

¶26

U T

Sanny Kumar @ Saket Priyadarshi v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanny Kumar @ Saket Priyadarshi v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Jitendra Kumar Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Pankaj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Butan Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Babul Kumar @ Bablu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Subhash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar