Satyam Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2241 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2018 Thana- BIND District- Nalanda ====================================================== Satyam Kumar, S/o Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Prasad, Resident of VillageParwati, PS- Kasichak (Shahpur), District-Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Anil Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anish Chandra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 07-03-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
Petitioner is in custody on his remand in connection with Bind P.S. Case No.58 of 2018 since 15.11.2018 registered for the offence under Sections 364A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, but subsequent thereto on the basis of the confessional statement made before the police by one co-accused Rishu Raj, the name of the petitioner has been drawn in. Thereafter, the petitioner has made to give his selfconfessional statement before the police, which has no evidentiary value.
Diary in the present case was called for earlier, which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2241 of 2019(4) dt.07-03-2019 2/2 has since been received.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State after perusal of the case diary submits that in the statement made before the police by the victim himself, the petitioner has been specifically named as one of the persons who had kidnapped him and thereafter demanded ransom from the father of the victim boy.
In view of the specific assertion made by the victim himself in his statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. clearly implicating and involving the petitioner with the specific role, I am not inclined to grant regular bail of the petitioner. It is, accordingly, rejected.
(Anjana Mishra, J) PNM/Rakesh U T