Dismissed¶23

Ram Kumar Yadav @ Raj Kumar Yadav @ R.K. Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC27 Feb 2024CR. MISC./56934/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ram Kumar Yadav @ Raj Kumar Yadav @ R.K. Yadav vs The State of Bihar; Patna High Court Criminal Miscellaneous No.56934 of 2023, decided 27-02-2024 by Dr. Anshuman, J.; arising out of Nirmali P.S. Case 86/2021, G.R. No. 383/2021 (S.T. No. 245/2021), District Supaul, under Sections 364, 364A and 34 IPC (kidnapping for ransom); regular bail rejected despite parity plea based on co-accused bail orders in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 71784 of 2021 and 23328 of 2023; petitioner in custody since 18.06.2021 with 17 other pending cases; trial Court directed to conclude trial expeditiously; application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; prayer for regular bail rejected, with a direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial as early as possible. ¶23

Ram Kumar Yadav @ Raj Kumar Yadav @ R.K. Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56934 of 2023

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2021 Thana- NIRMALI District- Supaul

¶3

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

¶4

Ram Kumar Yadav @ Raj Kumar Yadav @ R.K. Yadav, S/o Rameshwar Yadav R/o Village-Phulkaha Katti, Ward No.-5, P.S.-Sukhipur, District-Sirha (Nepal)

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Hriday Narayan Harshit, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Khurshid Anwar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER

¶11

7 27-02-2024

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶13

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Nirmali P.S. Case 86/2021 corresponding to G.R. No. 383/2021 (S. T. No. 245/2021), lodged on 31.05.2021 under Sections 364, 364A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

As per the prosecution case, the FIR has been lodged against 16 named accused persons and unknown. The allegation against the said accused persons is that they have kidnapped the son of the informant and started demanding ransom through the mobile number of the daughter-in-law of the informant. It has been alleged that when the informant reached to save his son with money then the accused persons left the

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56934 of 2023(7) dt.27-02-2024 2/3

¶16

place and with this allegation that the accused persons had kidnapped the informant’s son for ransom, the present FIR has been lodged.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. The name of the petitioner has figured in this case only on the basis of suspicion raised by the informant and except this, there is no cogent material found against the present petitioner. He further submits that two co-accused persons have been granted bail by different co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide order dated 19.05.2023 and 21.06.2023 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 71784 of 2021 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 23328 of 2023 respectively. The petitioner is in custody since 18.06.2021. The petitioner is accused in 17 more cases and in all the cases, he has been granted bail.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in the rejection order passed by the Addition Sessions Judge, it has been observed that on the identification of co-accused Satish Yadav @ Satish Kumar Yadav, the mobile phone of the victim had been recovered from the house of the petitioner. The antecedent of the petitioner is not clean as there are a total 17 cases pending against him. He

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56934 of 2023(7) dt.27-02-2024 3/3

¶20

further submits that as per submission, the petitioner has been granted bail in all the 17 cases pending against him, but such a statement is lacking in paragraph 3 of the bail application.

¶21

This Court vide order dated 02.12.2023 called for a report with respect to the present stage of the trial. The report has been received indicating therein that the trial is likely to be concluded within 9 months.

¶22

In the present facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

¶23

Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner in connection with Nirmali P.S. Case 86/2021, corresponding to G.R. No. 383/2021 (S. T. No. 245/2021), pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, District Supaul is hereby rejected.

¶24

However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible.

¶25

With this observation, the bail application stands disposed off.

¶26

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

¶27

Ashwini/-

¶28

U T

Ram Kumar Yadav @ Raj Kumar Yadav @ R.K. Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kumar Yadav @ Raj Kumar Yadav @ R.K. Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nikhil Kumar @ Nikhil Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rita Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Anr.

Pankaj Kumar Panth Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Saddam Hussain @ Sadam Hussain Vs The State of Bihar

Rizwana Begum @ Rizwana Khatoon Vs The State of Bihar

Anupam Kumar Sahu Vs The State of Bihar