The Patna High Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail. Despite the petitioner's claim of false implication, the Court refused bail citing criminal antecedents and evidence from call details indicating the petitioner's contact with the victim on the date of occurrence.
Prayer for anticipatory bail dismissed.
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.36018 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-437 Year-2018 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna
======================================================
SANTOSH RAI @ SANTOSH KUMAR S/o Bijendra Rai R/o VillageLodipur, P.S.- Janipur, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mrs.Usha Kumari Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Upendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER
3 17-08-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP representing the State.
Petitioner in the present case is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No.437 of 2018 registered for the offence under Sections 364 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the prosecution story the son of the informant went missing on 09.06.2018, mobile number of the victim was switched off. The informant was told by his wife and son that the victim went on the motorcycle to meet one Aman Kumar, Sadhu Rai and Binod Kumar. It is further alleged that in course of search the informant went to the house of one Santosh Rai at Lodipur where it was disclosed by his wife that the victim had gone with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36018 of 2019(3) dt.17-08-2019 2/3
the aforesaid persons. The informant alleged that a month back there was some dispute among Santosh, Shushil (victim), Binod and Santosh Kumar. It is alleged therefore that the victim son of the informant had been kidnapped.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on mere suspicion. It is submitted that although the date of occurrence is 09.06.2018, but the FIR has been lodged on 12.06.2018 and further the motorcycle of the victim has been recovered from the house of co-accused namely Ravindra Rai.
Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Referring to the impugned order, learned APP submits that in the case diary sufficient materials have come against the petitioner indicating his involvement in the present occurrence. In course of investigation, it has been revealed that the call details of the mobile phone of the victim shows that the last call was received from the accused-petitioner on the alleged date of occurrence.
In the given facts and circumstances of the case where this petitioner has got criminal antecedent and two other cases on his head of serious nature and further that the call details of the victim’s mobile shows that the last call was received from
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36018 of 2019(3) dt.17-08-2019 3/3
this petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. This application is dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
arvind/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in connection with the abetment to kidnapper offence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SANTOSH RAI @ SANTOSH KUMAR
The State of Bihar
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
