Ravi Wa

Download as doc, pdf, or txt
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3

IN,

The Court of Additional Sessions Judge V


MUZAFFARPUR
Anticipatory Bail Petition No.1331 of 2021
Ravi Kumar @ Pappu & Another -------------Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Bihar------------------------- Opposite Party
The humble Written submissions on
behalf of the petitioners:----
Most Respectfully Sheweth:--------
1. That By this Anticipatory Bail petition the petitioners pray for
grant of Anticipatory Bail to them who apprehend arrest in
connection with Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 335 of 2019 pending
before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
2. That the instant case is result of Civil Dispute. The
informant Laxman Paswan is local politician and property
dealer. In order to grab the ancestral land and house of the
petitioners the informant has implicated them in the present false
and fabricated case. (Paragraph 6 of Anticipatory Bail Petition)

3. That Civil Suits pertaining to the property mentioned in the FIR


are already pending in competent courts. (Paragraph 9 of
Anticipatory Bail Petition).

4. That the property which is bone of contention between the


petitioners and the informant is ancestral property of the
petitioners. The petitioners alongwith their family live on the said
property since more than 50 years. (Paragraph 5 of Anticipatory
Bail Petition)

5. That the instant case has been registered under Sections 447,
384,504,506 and 34 of IPC. All of them are bailable except
Section 384 of IPC.

6. It is settled principle of Law that in order to constitute a case


under Section 384 of IPC there must be inducement and threat on
the informant by the petitioners and valuable security or property
must be delivered to the petitioners by the informant under threat.

7. That it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble
Patna High Court that in order to constitute a case under Section
384 of the IPC there must be delivery of property by the informant
to the petitioners. If there has been no delivery of property or
valuable security a case under Section 384 of IPC cannot be made
out.

8.Hon’ble Patna High Court has held—“Thus, what is necessary


for constituting an offence of 'extortion' is that the prosecution must
prove that on account of being put in fear of injury, the victim was
voluntarily delivering any particular property to the man putting
him into fear. If there was no delivery of property, then the most
important ingredient for constituting the offence of 'extortion'
would not be available. Further, if a person voluntarily delivers any
property without there being any fear of injury, an offence of
'extortion' cannot be said to have been committed.” (Criminal Misc.
No.393 of 2015--Suryamuni Devi Versus The State of Bihar)

9. That on perusal of the FIR and Police diary it appears that the
informant has alleged that rupees ten lacks were demanded by the
petitioners as extortion money. The FIR or case diary does not
mention that any money or valuable security was given to the
petitioners by the informant or his family. The informant has
alleged that on demand of Extortion money he fled away to save
his life. Thus it is crystal clear that the informant has not given the
alleged extortion money to the petitioners at all.

10. That in view of the circumstances mentioned above and the


material available on record no case under section 384 of IPC is
made out against the petitioners.

11. That the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. (Para 12


of the Anticipatory Bail Petition)
It is, therefore, prayed that Your Honour
may graciously be pleased to allow this
application and direct that the petitioners be
released on bail forthwith either on arrest or
on surrender in connection with Ahiyapur
P.S. Case No. 335 of 2019 pending in the
Court of Chief Judicial Mgistrate,
Muzaffarpur
And for this the petitioners will ever pray.

You might also like