Patna High Court - Orders
Hassan Mansoori vs The State Of Bihar on 19 June, 2014
Author: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Bench: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.9273 of 2014
Arising Out of
PS.Case No. -39 Year- 2013 Thana -BAHADURPUR District- PATNA
======================================================
Hassan Mansoori Son Of Late Abdul Samad Mansoori Resident Of Village
- Godguan Phulwari Tola, P.S.- Taki, Distrit - Ranchi
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORAL ORDER
3 19-06-2014Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 39 of 2013 instituted for offence punishable under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and the allegation is that the uncle of the informant was abducted and Rs. 5 lakh ransom was asked for. It is submitted that the petitioner was recovered from Ranchi while wandering. In the statement made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), he has taken the name of one Shakil and also the name of the petitioner who are alleged to have had role in his Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9273 of 2014 (3) dt.19-06-2014 2/4 abduction. It is submitted that against the petitioner the allegation is that he kept the victim in his house for a night. Learned counsel submits that from the statement under Section 164 of the Code recorded of the so called victim, it appears that the story is not natural. He submits that on the one hand, it is stated that the abductors treated him well, whereas on the other hand, it is stated that he was kept after removing his clothes and tying him up. It is further submitted that the victim has claimed that due to police pressure, the abductors had let him go free. It is submitted that in fact the petitioner, who works for Shakil and it was the victim who had assured to give contract for construction for such TV towers to Shakil for which he had also taken commission of Rs. 5 lakh but neither the contract was given nor money returned for which Shakil was putting pressure on the victim and for that purpose the victim had gone to Ranchi to negotiate but he had cooked up a story so as to force Shakil not to demand money which he had taken. Learned counsel submits that when the police had gone to Ranchi and the victim was recovered, on his statement, the police had gone to the house of the petitioner from where he was arrested and a case under the Arms Act was instituted at Ranchi on 06.04.2013 in which case he has already been granted bail. It is stated that if the petitioner was involved in Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9273 of 2014 (3) dt.19-06-2014 3/4 the abduction he would not have been present in his house after releasing the victim so as to be caught by the police and would also not have kept arms in his place. Learned counsel submits that when the petitioner was granted bail in the Arms Act in Jharkhand but still not released by the police, he moved this Court in Criminal Writ No. 1158 of 2013 alleging illegal detention which was disposed off on 18.12.2013 by a Division Bench of this Court observing that the petitioner had been released from Ranchi. Learned counsel submits that thereafter the petitioner was brought to Patna and remanded in the present case on 19.12.2013. Learned counsel further submits that besides the other case under the Arms Act against the petitioner relating to the same incident, he has no other criminal antecedent.
Learned APP for the State, after going through the case diary submits that the victim has named the petitioner in his statement but does not dispute the fact that the role assigned to the petitioner is that he had kept the victim in his house for a night.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsels for the parties, let the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9273 of 2014 (3) dt.19-06-2014 4/4
(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, Patna in Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 39 of 2013.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Prakash/-
U T