IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45333 of 2008 KAMESHWAR BAITHA @ UDESHWAR BAITHA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 15.1.2009 Heard. The petitioner is named in the FIR of a case under sections 384 and 385 of I.P.C. and section 17 of Criminal Law Amendment Act which is in respect of taking away vehicles from the possession of the driver of the informant because the informant, who was probably a contractor, was not paying up the demanded rangdari for carrying out the business to the group of criminals headed by the present petitioner. The petitioner was also very much present and asking for 5% of the total contract amount. The contention is that it was not the petitioner who had relieved the driver of the vehicle of his possession and it could be different persons as is indicated in the FIR itself and the petitioner was merely present there. It is true that persons other than the petitioner had divested the driver of the vehicle but the petitioner was very much present and he was putting up the demands for payment of the levy amount for release of the vehicle, 2 considering which, I am not inclined to direct release of the petitioner on bail. The petition is dismissed. If the charge sheet is submitted, the court below is expected to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha,J )