Second regular bail application in an extortion and shooting case under IPC Sections 307/385/387/506/34 and Arms Act Section 27. The court found no new ground to revisit its earlier rejection based on criminal antecedents and dismissed the application.
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.48544 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2023 Thana- MANJHAGARH District- Gopalganj
======================================================
AMIT THAKUR SON OF RAJESHWAR THAKUR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- TARWA, P.S.- MANJHAGARH, DISTT.- GOPALGANJ
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra Mr. Yogendra Tiwari Mr. Milind Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER
2 02-08-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
grant of regular bail as earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 7.11.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 71382 of 2023 which reads as under:-
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is in custody since 25.04.2023 in connection with Manjhagarh P.S. Case No. 47 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307/385/ 387/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along with others is said to have demanded extortion and for the same, the have shot at the victim.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case because of his criminal antecedents. He further submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48544 of 2024(2) dt.02-08-2024
2/2
no extortion was ever demanded by the petitioner and the informant had not identified the petitioner.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the petitioner has four criminal antecedents.
6. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner which includes similar cases, I am not inclined to grant bail to this petitioner. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
7. The trial of all the cases registered against the petitioner are directed to be expedited.
8. Let a copy of the order be communicated to the learned District Judge, Gopalganj as well as to the Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj through FAX/e-mail forthwith for compliance of the order.
available on record and the impugned order, this Court finds no new ground to review its earlier order.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Vikas/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, whose earlier bail application was rejected on account of criminal antecedents, should be granted regular bail in the second attempt.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Amit Thakur
The State of Bihar
Sandeep Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
