Petitioner sought anticipatory bail facing charges of kidnapping and extortion under Sections 364 and 365 IPC. Court rejected argument of false implication based solely on a co-accused's confession. Bail dismissed due to offence gravity.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.15194 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -302 Year- 2013 Thana -JAKKANPUR District- PATNA
======================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. APP
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER
4 07-08-2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15194 of 2014 (4) dt.07-08-2014
2
basis of case diary that the said Rahul Kumar along with coaccused Ravi Kumar have been charge-sheeted under Section 420/120B/387 of the IPC.
(Vikash Jain, J)
P.K./-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner apprehending arrest under Sections 364 and 365 of the IPC.
Dileep Kumar @ Dilip Kumar
The State Of Bihar
Shiv Kumar Ram
Vikash Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
