The Patna High Court granted bail to the petitioner in a kidnapping case under IPC sections 366(A) and 34, noting lack of direct evidence and allegations of false implication.
Released on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount each.
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.27064 of 2015
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -146 Year- 2014 Thana -KAKO District- JEHANABAD ====================================================== 1. Samjeera Khatoon D/o Late Ibrahim Miyan R/o Vill : - Kazi, Daulatpur, P.S. : - Kako, Distt : - Jehanabad. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md.Fahmuddin (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 3 13-10-2015 Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Keep it on the record. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P. The petitioner seeks bail in a case for the offences punishable under sections 366 (A) 34 of the I.P.C The petitioner is named in the F.I.R with allegation that she and other F.I.R. named accused persons have kidnapped Barsha Kumari, daughter of the informant, aged 15 years with an intention to arrange marriage. The victim has not been recovered as yet and the charge sheet has already been submitted against the petitioner.
Submission is of false implication and that the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27064 of 2015 (3) dt.13-10-2015
2/2
informant is not an eye witness and only on suspicion she has been named resulting she is suffering in custody since 21.01.2015. The F.I.R has been lodged after much delay and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration as there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence. The independent witness vide paragraph-11 of the case diary, namely, Bishnu Kumar has stated that the petitioner and others have been falsely implicated.
The learned A.P.P. fairly submits that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner.
In the facts and circumstances as stated above, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Jehanabad in Kako P.S. Case No. 146 of 2014, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.
(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J)
Abhay/U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner deserves bail in a kidnapping case based on false implication allegations.
Whether the FIR was lodged after much delay justifying sympathetic consideration for bail.
Whether direct evidence exists against the petitioner to deny bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Samjeera Khatoon
The State of Bihar
Jitendra Mohan Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
