Dismissed

Satyam Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC7 Mar 2019CR. MISC./2241/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court rejected a regular bail petition. The petitioner, remanded for kidnapping and extortion accused him under Sections 364A and 120B IPC, argued he was added via a co-accused's confession. The Court held the specific assertion by the victim in Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement clearly implicated the petitioner, thus rejecting bail.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail of the petitioner granted to him and the reply application has not been dismissed.

Satyam Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2241 of 2019

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2018 Thana- BIND District- Nalanda

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Satyam Kumar, S/o Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Prasad, Resident of VillageParwati, PS- Kasichak (Shahpur), District-Nawada

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Bihar Bihar

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anish Chandra, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER

¶11

4 07-03-2019

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶13

counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶14

Petitioner is in custody on his remand in connection with Bind P.S. Case No.58 of 2018 since 15.11.2018 registered for the offence under Sections 364A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, but subsequent thereto on the basis of the confessional statement made before the police by one co-accused Rishu Raj, the name of the petitioner has been drawn in. Thereafter, the petitioner has made to give his selfconfessional statement before the police, which has no evidentiary value.

¶16

Diary in the present case was called for earlier, which

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2241 of 2019(4) dt.07-03-2019 2/2

¶18

has since been received.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State after perusal of the case diary submits that in the statement made before the police by the victim himself, the petitioner has been specifically named as one of the persons who had kidnapped him and thereafter demanded ransom from the father of the victim boy.

¶20

In view of the specific assertion made by the victim himself in his statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. clearly implicating and involving the petitioner with the specific role, I am not inclined to grant regular bail of the petitioner. It is, accordingly, rejected.

¶21

(Anjana Mishra, J)

¶22

PNM/Rakesh

¶23

U T

Satyam Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyam Kumar 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

Pappu Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Santosh Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Karma Kumar Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Gulfaraj @ Gulfaraj Hafij @ Md. Gulfaraj Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Pukar Sahani Vs The State of Bihar

Nawal Giri Vs The State of Bihar