Mantu Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.19692 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -185 Year- 2016 Thana -DHANSORI District- BUXAR ======================================================
1. Mantu Ram Son of Binod Ram, Resident of Village- Baradhi, P.S. Kochas, District Rohtash.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Shanker Pankaj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh (APP-138) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 25-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dhansoi P.S Case No. 185 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under Section 364 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, Rahul Mishra the son of the informant was kidnapped and from Mobile No. 9852451655 ransom of Rs. 15 lacs was demanded within 4-5 days otherwise to kill the victim. During investigation, the name of the petitioner transpired in confessional statement of co-accused Mantu Pandey and thereafter the petitioner also confessed his guilt, vide para 67 of the case diary, and on the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner the dead body of Rahul Mishra (skeleton) was recovered.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19692 of 2017 (4) dt.25-05-2017 2/2 Submission is of false implication and that there is no legal and tangible material against the petitioner, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, without any fault he is in custody since 16.02.2017, co-accused Om Prakash Singh has been allowed bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 9614 of 2017, the petitioner is a student of clean antecedent and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration. Learned A.P.P opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that on the basis of disclosure made by the petitioner the skeleton of Rahul Mishra was recovered.
In the facts and circumstances stated above, noticing that on the basis of disclosure made by the petitioner the skeleton of Rahul Mishra was recovered and, as such, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected, in connection with Dhansoi P.S Case No. 185 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IIIrd, Buxar.
(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T