Patna High Court - Orders
Suraj Soni vs The State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2014
Author: Aditya Kumar Trivedi
Bench: Aditya Kumar Trivedi
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18301 of 2014 (06) dt.16-09-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.18301 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -415 Year- 2013 Thana -MUZAFFARPUR SADAR District-
MUZAFFARPUR
======================================================
Suraj Soni
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ahmad Ali(APP)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
ORAL ORDER
06 16-09-2014Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
Victim Shivam Kumar aged about 14 years and a student of Class-IX along with his friends proceeded from Muzaffarpur on motorcycle bearing Registration No.BR-06V- 6786 did not return. Although, his two friends Krishna Kumar and Abhinav returned back and as they failed to give the clue regarding Shivam Kumar, his mother has filed instant case.
So far petitioner is concerned, it is evident from Para-170 of the case diary that the petitioner was apprehended along with Shivam. Statement of Shivam has been recorded under Para-172 as well as his statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. happens to be under Para-179 of the case diary.
It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that he Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18301 of 2014 (06) dt.16-09-2014 never kidnapped Shivam to commit murder or to secretly confine him for the purpose of committing murder, which is itself apparent from the statement of the victim. Victim on his own came to the place of petitioner for employment and was accordingly provided employment at Ranchi where he was working. It is apparent from the statement that during intervening period while the victim was at Ranchi, petitioner's presence was not at all. Had there been a case of kidnapping, victim a student of Class-IX would have certainly raised alarm during course of his employment under one Sohar Mahto. From his statement, it is also apparent that he was not at all made captive at Ranchi. Therefore, continuance of victim at Ranchi is indicative of the fact that whatever job he was doing be it a manual one, was out of free volition. Whenever, petitioner was informed, he had gone to Ranchi and was carrying the victim so that he would be able to return back, unfortunately, was apprehended. It has also been submitted that victim had not disclosed that even his stay along with petitioner any kind of physical force was ever used against him. It happens to be just and unfortunate step of a boy under teenage who out of curiosity escaped from his house on account thereof, petitioner has also been victimized by having his detention since long.
On the other hand, leaned Additional Public Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18301 of 2014 (06) dt.16-09-2014 Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that there happens to be consistent version of the victim that he was kept at the place of petitioner forcibly against his wish. Not only this, his motorcycle was sold away by the petitioner. The aforesaid motorcycle till today has not been recovered and then he was removed at Ranchi conspicuously and then had taken back to Biharsharif by the petitioner.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, for the present, I do not see it a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, prayer of petitioner for bail is rejected. If so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after examination of victim.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) Vikash/-
U T