The High Court at Patna granted bail to petitioners accused of kidnapping and murder in a case arising from a land dispute. The court noted the lack of criminal history and unsupported prosecution witnesses.
Released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 each to be joined by two sureties.
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.10051 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -188 Year- 2015 Thana -BAJPATTI District- SITAMARHI ====================================================== 1. Ashok Rai son of Maheshwar Rai 2. Vinay Rai 3. Sunil Rai Both sons of Ram Sakal Rai All Resident of villageMahmadpur, P.S.- Bajpatti, District- Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr Mahendra Thakur, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Pd.Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER
3 18-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The prosecution case on the basis of the Complaint petition filed by the Complainant, Mahendra Rai, which has been registered under Section 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. is that when he was at his house, his son Dinesh Rai received a call on his mobile and he told about meeting with Ashok but did not return. After hectic search, the younger son of the complainant,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10051 of 2016 (3) dt.18-05-2016
2/3
namely, Kamlesh Rai stated that Dinesh Rai was going towards Sitamarhi with Ashok Rai, Vinay Rai, Sunil Rai and Bhola Rai and the informant believed that due to land dispute, the petitioners and others had kidnapped his son.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and they have no criminal antecedent, as is evident from para-3 of this application and the motive behind such allegation is previous land dispute, which has been supported by all independent witnesses as well as the police in its supervision note that the informant’s son is kept in hiding in order to implicate the petitioner. Some of the witnesses have also stated that the informant’s son had gone to Delhi.
However, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and the victim is still traceless, hence opposes the prayer for bail.
Be that as it may, since there is land dispute and the petitioners have no criminal history and the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of eight weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten thousand) each
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10051 of 2016 (3) dt.18-05-2016
3/3
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupri at Sitamarhi in connection with Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 188/2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P. C.
(Nilu Agrawal, J)
Sudha/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners should be released on bail given the existence of a land dispute motive and lack of criminal antecedents.
Whether the apprehension of arrest in the kidnapping case warrants bail under Section 438 CrPC.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ashok Rai
Vinay Rai
Sunil Rai
The State of Bihar
Nilu Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
