In a bail application regarding kidnapping and abduction under Section 364 IPC, the Patna High Court rejected the plea. The court held that despite lack of eye-witnesses, the victim who accompanied the petitioner remains unaccounted for, warranting continued detention.
Bail application rejected; petitioner not enlarged on bail.
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.9972 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -687 Year- 2015 Thana -HILSA District- NALANDA
(BIHARSHARIFF)
====================================================== Pankaj Kumar @ Magania S/o Suresh Gope Resident of VillageDarogakuan, Gabrapar, P.S. Hilsa, District- Nalanda.
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijendra Prasad Sinha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
The petitioner seeks bail in Hilsa P.S. Case No. 687/2015, registered for the offences punishable under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant alleged that his son Sukhdeo Gope disclosed his sister that he was going along with Pankaj Kumar @ Magania (petitioner) to see Sonepur fair, but his son did not return.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence. The petitioner is in jail since 25.12.2015. The date of occurrence is 18.12.2015 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 24.12.2015. Save and except suspicion there is no material against the petitioner.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9972 of 2017 (3) dt.03-04-2017
2/2
On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it was the petitioner who took the victim along with him and thereafter the victim has not been recovered. The victim is still traceless. Charge-sheet is also submitted against the petitioner.
Considering the facts aforesaid and the fact that the victim went along with the petitioner and he is still traceless, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.)
Vinita/U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case under Section 364 IPC where the victim is yet to be recovered.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pankaj Kumar @ Magania
The State of Bihar
Prabhat Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
