Patna High Court rejected the bail plea of the petitioner arrested in a kidnapping case involving the abduction of Dr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta and his wife from an Audi Car.
Bail prayer rejected. Trial is directed to be concluded early.
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.3146 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -155 Year- 2015 Thana -BARACHATTI District- GAYA ====================================================== 1. Vijay Singh son of Late Rajendra Singh resident of Village- Chitarsari, P.S. Rafiganj, District- Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Khare (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER
Allegedly, Dr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta and his wife were kidnapped by some unknown miscreants from Barachatti region when they were going from Giridih from his Audi Car bearing registration no. JH01AB-7698. During investigation the victims were released and on the basis of their statement raid was conducted in Flat No. 906 of Sharda Apartment at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and from there the petitioner and other co-accused were
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3146 of 2016 (3) dt.18-03-2016
2/3
apprehended with the arms and further the looted Audi Car, other looted Cars and the articles of the victims Dr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta and his wife were recovered besides other incriminating articles.
Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner has been made victim of the circumstances, he has been implicated merely on suspicion, the confessional statement of the co-accused has got no evidentiary value in the eye of law, the petitioner was not arrested from the room of Flat No. 906 but from the basement and without any legal and cogent material the petitioner is suffering in custody since 11.05.2015.
The learned A.P.P. opposes prayer for bail by submitting that the petitioner and other co-accused were apprehended and from the basement itself the looted Audi Car besides other vehicles were recovered and further from that flat the articles of the victims were also recovered which was identified by them also later on.
In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner, serious in nature, at present this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with Barachatti P.S. Case No. 155 of 2015 pending
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3146 of 2016 (3) dt.18-03-2016
3/3
in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya.
However, considering detention of the petitioner, let
the trial be expedited and concluded as early as possible.
(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J)
Abhay/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible to be released on bail in a case of kidnapping under Section 364 IPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vijay Singh
The State of Bihar
Jitendra Mohan Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
