Allowed

Sanjay Rawat and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC15 Oct 2015CR. MISC./27845/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court in two co-conjoined bail applications arising out of a kidnapping and ransom case under Section 364A IPC directed the release of the petitioners on bail. The court noted the accused had been in custody for over four months and the victim was safely released without naming the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to be released on bail on execution of bonds of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties.

Sanjay Rawat and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27845 of 2015 (3) dt.15-10-2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.27845 of 2015

¶3

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -64 Year- 2015 Thana -JHAJHA District- JAMUI ====================================================== 1. Sanjay Rawat Son of Suresh Rawat 2. Dinesh Yadav Son of Rajendra Yadav Both are resident of village - Dhamna, Police Station - Jhajha, District - Jamui .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.31724 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -64 Year- 2015 Thana -JHAJHA District- JAMUI ====================================================== 1. Mukesh Yadav Son of Late Parmeshwar Yadav Resident of village - Nouakura, P.S. Jhajha, District - Jamui .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In Cr.Misc. No.27845 of 2015) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Dhirendra Pratap Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Anurag Singh(App) (In Cr.Misc. No.31724 of 2015) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arjun Pd. Keshri For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramesh Chandra(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 3 15-10-2015 Above noted both the applications have arisen out of one occurrence i.e. Jhajha P.S. Case No. 64 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Allegedly, Motka Murmu and Prem Sagar Chaudhary the two labourers of construction company of the informant were

¶4

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27845 of 2015 (3) dt.15-10-2015

¶5

kidnapped on 22/23.04.205 and a call from mobile no. 8252660389 was received on his mobile no. 9801021012 wherein threats were caused for not doing work on the site. Munshi of Baba Hans Construction Company, namely, Pintu was noticed again and again by that mobile for demanding ransom from them.

¶6

During investigation name of the petitioners transpired in the confessional statement of Mahendra Sah and petitioner Mukesh Yadav has stated that he kept the victim Prem Sagar Chaudhary in the house of Bengali Yadav of village Naukura.

¶7

Submission is of false implication and that the victim Prem Sagar Chaudhary after his release has not stated the name of the petitioners and at the instance of local enemies and in connivance of local people the petitioners have been implicated due to business rivalry of two petty contractors. The petitioners are not named in the FIR and there is no materials showing their involvement, nothing has been recovered form their possession except one mobile without sim from possession of Mukesh Yadav. From the call details of mobile, involvement of petitioner Mukesh Yadav also does not transpire. Chargesheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of tampering with prosecution evidence. The petitioners are in custody since 07.05.2015.

¶8

Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail by submitting

¶9

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27845 of 2015 (3) dt.15-10-2015

¶10

that Mukesh Yadav has confessed his guilt and further in the impugned order it has come that he was using the mobile and ransom of Rs. 60,000/- was demanded.

¶11

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the period of detention of the petitioners and further that victim has been safely released and has not stated the names of the petitioners, the petitioners above named of both the cases are directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamui in connection with Jhajha P.S. Case No. 64 of 2015, 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 petitioners shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on their part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioners from privilege of bail.

¶12

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J)

¶13

avin/-

¶14

U T

Sanjay Rawat and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Rawat and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhiram Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Kant Lal Sharma and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Azad and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Sonu Burnwal @ Vikash Kr. Bharti Vs The State Of Bihar

Amit Singh Yadav Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Rinku @ Jafare Alam Vs The State Of Bihar