Patna High Court
Durgesh Shivam @ Samar ThakurversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Durgesh Shivam @ Samar Thakur, applied for anticipatory bail in connection with an extortion case (PS Case No.831/2023) involving offences under Sections 341, 342, 386, 387, 452, 307, 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He contended that he is not named in the FIR, was absent from the scene (alibi of being in Madhepura), and that the allegations primarily target another accused, Nirdosh. The State argued that the petitioner’s name emerged during investigation, he has two prior cases, and there is a risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. The court examined the seriousness of the allegations, the petitioner’s antecedents, and the weakness of the alibi plea. Concluding that the risk factors outweighed the petitioner’s claims, the court denied the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the seriousness of the offences alleged.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of not being named in the FIR and his alibi constitute sufficient grounds for bail.
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 34, 341, 342, 386, 387, 452
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- extortion
- IPC
- Arms Act
- alibi
- bail jurisprudence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55074 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-831 Year-2023 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul
======================================================
Durgesh Shivam @ Samar Thakur S/O Rupesh Kumar @ Jai Shankar Thakur
R/O Mohalla- Ward No 13,Bhumihar Tola,Nagar Parishad, Supaul and Distt-
Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Murari Narain Chaudhary
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kanhiya Kishor
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 25-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Supaul P.S. Case No.831/2023, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 342, 386, 387, 452, 307, 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases and the informant alleges
that he has a jewellery shop and resides on rent in the house of
Sadanand Sah, further on 29.10.2023 at 11.30 A.M. Nirdosh
Yadav @ Subhash Kumar Yadav along with 6-7 unknown
accused persons came and rang the doorbell and the door was
opened by his minor son aged about 8 years and the accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55074 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2026
2/3
persons forcefully entered his house and Nirdosh put pistol on
the head of his son and demanded extortion of Rs.10 lacs or else
the son would be killed, the informant said he does not have
Rs.10 lacs in the house, on which, Nirdosh fired between his
legs, hence the wife of the informant on account of fear, gave
Rs.4,50,000/- and the same was video-graphed by the accused
persons, further while leaving the accused persons threatened
that if rest Rs.5,50,000/- is not paid by the evening the entire
family would be wiped out.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is not named in the FIR. It is further submitted that
thrust of the allegation is against Nirdosh. It is also submitted
that even informant has not identified the petitioner or else
would have named him. It is next submitted that during course
of investigation, the name of the petitioner transpired based on
information provided by the spy. It is also submitted that
petitioner on the date of occurrence was not even present at the
place of occurrence rather was at Madhepura i.e. his native
place. It is next submitted that Nirdosh was arrested and he has
been granted the privilege of regular bail by the learned District
Court.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55074 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2026
3/3
prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that
though petitioner is not named in the FIR but then during the
course of investigation, his name transpired. It is also submitted
that allegations are serious as the informant alleges that he has a
jewellery shop and Nirdosh along with accused persons
forcefully entered his house and kept his minor son on gun point
and thereafter demanded extortion, based on which, wife of the
inforant even gave Rs.4,50,000/-. It is further submitted that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases and if privilege of
anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond or try to
tamper with the evidence. It is also submitted that as far as
submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner is that petitioner was present in his native place on the
date of occurrence, the same is a plea of alibi, which is a weak
plea.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…