Anuj Kumar Jha vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, Anuj Kumar Jha, in connection with Madhubani Town P.S. Case No. 84 of 2020. The Court found that there was no specific material on record directly demonstrating the demand of ransom against the petitioner. Therefore, considering the lack of direct evidence and the petitioner's period of custody, the Court was inclined to grant bail. The bail was granted on the condition that the petitioner furnishes a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Madhubani. A significant condition imposed was that both bailors must be GST registered traders. The Court did not expressly leave any issues undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Anuj Kumar Jha, is in custody in connection with Madhubani Town P.S. Case No. 84 of 2020, for offences under Sections 365, 364A, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was implicated based solely on suspicion. The prosecution's case suggested that a mobile phone, purchased by the petitioner for his staff, was used to facilitate the payment of ransom. The petitioner had been in custody since March 24, 2020. The dispute involves allegations related to ransom payment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in connection with Madhubani Town P.S. Case No. 84 of 2020, considering the allegations of involvement in ransom payment. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner has been implicated on mere suspicion and that there is no specific material directly linking him to the demand of ransom. The petitioner has been in custody for a significant period. The State, represented by the learned APP, did not present any specific counter-arguments regarding the petitioner's bail application, focusing instead on the prosecution's case as presented in the FIR and related documents.