Patna High Court - Orders
Manoj Kumar & Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 28 September, 2016
Bench: Aditya Kumar Trivedi, Samarendra Pratap Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.612 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -224 Year- 2005 Thana -SIKARPUR District-
WESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH)
======================================================
1. Manoj Kumar Son of Ramji Prasad,
2. Ganpat Das, Son of Late Jaggarnath Das, Both R/o Village - Siyarahi,
P.S. - Shikarpur, District - East Champaran .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar ... .... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA
PRATAP SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP
SINGH)
4 28-09-2016Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Lower court records.
Appellants have been convicted under sections 364A/34 of the IPC. As per prosecution case, on 28.8.2005 informant's son Rajan Kumar, aged about 6 years, went missing while playing in front of the door of co-accused Ramji Prasad, son of appellant no.1. In course of search, one Ramji Prasad asked him to arrange money for tracing his son. Thereafter, on 30.8.2005 in the evening appellant no.2 handed over a letter to the informant, demanding Rs.1,80,000/- as ransom.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that they have been implicated in this case by PW 2 Bhutti Miyan, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.612 of 2016 (4) dt.28-09-2016 2 who was accused of Shikarpur Police station Case No. 03 of 2002 in which Ramji Prasad was kidnapped. Learned counsel further submits that said PW 2 for the first time disclosed all these facts before the trial court, though the FIR was lodged belatedly without expressing any suspicion on this line. He also submits that all the prosecution witnesses belong to one and the same family and even in another petition filed on 3.9.2005, no suspicion has been raised against the appellants.
Learned counsel for the State as well as the informant submits that PW 2, whose house lies in front of house of appellants, has stated in his deposition that on 28.8.2005 he had seen appellant no.1 providing biscuit to the boy and taking him inside the house.
In the facts of the case, we are not inclined to grant bail to the appellants. Their prayer for bail is accordingly rejected.
(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) Shashi.
U T