The Patna High Court granted bail to the petitioner charged with kidnapping and dacoity. The court inferred consent from the victim's lack of alarm during travel and stayed, noting the delayed filing of the complaint.
Petitioner directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the 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.371 of 2015
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -56 Year- 2012 Thana -FULKAHA District- ARRARIA ====================================================== 1. Mithilesh Paswan Son of Sri Rajendra Paswan VillageTopnawajganj,P.S-Phulkaha,District-Araria .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kundan Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.Dayal(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 3 10-03-2015 Heard both sides. The petitioner seeks bail in a case under sections 395 , 366 and other sections of the I.P.C. The informant made allegation that her daughter-in-law Sanjana Devi was kidnapped by the accused persons, and they also committed dacoity in the house of the informant. It is submitted that the date of occurrence is 13-11-2012, but the complaint was filed on 19-11-2012. All the allegations of kidnapping and dacoity are false and concocted. The victim was in love with the petitioner, and she accompanied the petitioner to Haridwar, but she did not raise any alarm during the traveling with the petitioner. The victim made statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. after having
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.371 of 2015 (3) dt.10-03-2015
2 / 2
come in the influence of her family members. The victim is a married woman.
On the other hand, learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim made categorical statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. that the petitioner kidnapped and kept her in Haridwar, and the petitioner also committed rape on her.
On a perusal of the records, it appears that the victim is major, aged about 24 years. The occurrence took place on 13-112012, but the complaint petition was filed on 29-11-2012. The informant did not raise any alarm while she was accompanying the petitioner to Haridwar, and during her stay with the petitioner. This fact shows that the victim was a consenting party.
Considering the aforesaid facts, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria, in Phulkaha P.S. Case No. 56/12, G.R.No. 2607/12.
B.Roy/-
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)
U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in a case alleging kidnapping and dacoity where the victim allegedly accompanied the petitioner consensually without raising an alarm.
Whether the complaint was filed with sufficient credibility after a significant delay.
Whether the coerced or false nature of the victim's statement can be inferred from her conduct during the occurrence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mithilesh Paswan
The State of Bihar
Prabhat Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
