Patna High Court - Orders
Rajeev Ram @ Rajiv Ram vs The State Of Bihar on 6 December, 2016
Author: Prabhat Kumar Jha
Bench: Prabhat Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.42934 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -510 Year- 2015 Thana -KISHANGANJ District- KISANGANJ
======================================================
Rajeev Ram @ Rajiv Ram Son of Shiv Lal Ram Resident of Village -
Khagra (Paswan Tola), P.S. - Kishanganj, District - Kishanganj.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amal Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Asha Devi, APP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
5 06-12-2016Heard both sides.
The petitioner seeks bail in Kishanganj P.S. Case No. 510 of 2015, corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 112 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant alleged that his son Siddhanth Rai aged about 16 years went towards Paschimpali but he did not return till 10:00 in the night. During course of search, the informant enquired from Rohit, a friend of his son and others but they did not disclose about his son. The informant further alleged that during course of search he came to know that Prakash Pal, Rohit Das, Rajiv Ram, the petitioner and Md. Tariq Alam took his son on an Indica car. The informant also alleged that on the same day Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42934 of 2016 (5) dt.06-12-2016 2/3 at 12:36 P.M. his son got call on his mobile number 9102443508 from mobile number 9431464213 and a ransom of Rs. 20 lakhs was demanded.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the FIR name of the petitioner is mentioned on the basis of suspicion. During course of investigation, the victim Siddhanth Rai was recovered from a lonely place and he made his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The victim named the petitioner along with three other persons but co-accused Rohit Kumar Das and Prakash Paul @ Prakash Pal have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 23.08.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 33222 of 2016 and vide order dated 20.06.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15659 of 2016. The petitioner is in jail since 02.01.2016 but from perusal of the case diary as well as the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it appears that Rohit called the victim on his mobile near Bhushan Sweets from there Rohit, Rajiv, the petitioner and Prakash forcibly got him seated in an Indica car and took him towards Panjipara. The victim further disclosed that he was confined in a room and ransom was demanded but in the meantime police came and recovered him. During course of investigation, the witnesses have also reiterated the same facts. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42934 of 2016 (5) dt.06-12-2016 3/3
The offence is very serious in nature in which the victim was kidnapped for ransom. Hence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/-
U T