Bail application in a kidnapping-for-ransom case where the victim's school bag, tie and shirt were allegedly recovered from the petitioner's house at his instance. The court declined bail and directed the trial court to expedite the trial.
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.15946 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1353 Year-2023 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Kumar Saurabh @ Kanhai, son of Chandra Bhushan Singh @ Chandra Bhushan Prasad Singh, resident of Village- Athri Gorgatta Tola, P.SRunnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Gauri Shankar Gupta, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
3 03-05-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15946 of 2024(3) dt.03-05-2024 2/3
the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is not named in the FIR and he has been made accused on the basis of his confessional statement. Except suspicion, there is nothing against the petitioner. Though recovery of school uniform of kidnapped child is stated at the instance of the petitioner, but the said clothes were not put to any Test Identification Parade and do not belong to the victim. The petitioner was not identified by the victim or any of the witnesses and even from the CCTV footage. Even the victim was not recovered from the place of the petitioner and recovery was made from the railway station. No one has seen the petitioner with the victim. The mobile phone used in demanding ransom was not owned by the petitioner. Even the motorcycle of the petitioner was not identified for being used in kidnapping of the son of the informant. The petitioner is in custody since 19.10.2023 and is having clean antecedent. The learned counsel further submits that the co-accused person has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.21652 of 2024.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15946 of 2024(3) dt.03-05-2024 3/3
other articles of victim were made from the house of the petitioner at his instance and there is no plausible explanation. The learned APP further submits that it was not possible for the child to name the petitioner as the petitioner was not known person. The learned APP further submits that it has come in the statement of the victim boy that while the kidnapped boy was inside the house and police was knocking the door, a person took him away from the place.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail in a kidnapping case given recovery of victim's articles at his instance.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Kumar Saurabh @ Kanhai
The State of Bihar
Arun Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
