Dismissed

Deepak Kumar Jha @ Deepak Kumar @ Dipak Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC12 Nov 2024CR. MISC./51623/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the bail plea of the petitioner accused under Sections 364A/34 IPC. The court held that since the victim specifically named the petitioner as an abductor, bail would not be granted, though the plea can be renewed if the trial exceeds nine months.

What did the court decide?

Bail prayer rejected. Trial to be concluded within nine months; otherwise, bail plea can be renewed.

Deepak Kumar Jha @ Deepak Kumar @ Dipak Kumar Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51623 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-130 Year-2024 Thana- AMAUR District- Purnia

¶3

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

¶4

Deepak Kumar Jha @ Deepak Kumar @ Dipak Kumar Son Of Lalan Kumar Jha @ Lalit Jha Resident Of Village - Dodara Madhubani, P.S. - Lalitgram, District - Supaul

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, APP ======================================================

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶8

ORAL ORDER

¶9

3 12-11-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and perused the case diary.

¶10

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Amour P.S. Case No. 130 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 364A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

Prosecution case, in short, is that some unknown persons kidnapped the brother of the informant and demanded ransom from the informant and also threatened him to kill his brother if the ransom is not given.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that victim has been recovered in this case. Learned counsel further submitted that no ransom was transferred into the account of the petitioner and he

¶13

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51623 of 2024(3) dt.12-11-2024 2/2

¶14

has not concern with the occurrence at all. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since

¶15

24.03.2024 and has no criminal antecedent.

¶16

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that victim in his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that accused persons including this petitioner have kidnapped him and demanded ransom.

¶17

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and material available on record, since the victim has specifically whispered the name of the petitioner as one of the abductor, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶18

Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

¶19

Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

¶20

However, if the trial is not concluded after a period

¶21

of nine months from today, the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for grant of bail.

¶22

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶23

Alok Verma/-

¶24

U T

Deepak Kumar Jha @ Deepak Kumar @ Dipak Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar Jha @ Deepak Kumar @ Dipak Kumar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anshu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Akhilesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Suresh Tiwari @ Somnath Tiwari @ Tumnath Tiwari Vs The State of Bihar

Mahendra Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Sanju Devi Vs The State of Bihar