Sanjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.51142 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -147 Year- 2016 Thana -ARWAL District- JEHANABAD ====================================================== Sanjeet Kumar, son of Ram Vinay Singh, resident of village-Jeenpura, Police Station-Arwal, District-Arwal.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 01-12-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 15.08.2016 in connection with Arwal P.S.Case No.147 of 2016 for offence alleged under Sections 363, 365 and 120(B) of the IPC. The prosecution case is that on 11.08.2016 in between 8 A.M. to 9 A.M. four accused persons, namely, Arvind Kumar, Vikas Kumar, Mithilesh Yadav and Mantu Kumar came at the house of the informant and kidnapped his four year old grandson. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant is his father and there was some dispute with the father for which the victim boy was taken away and was returned the very next date. In this connection, he submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name surfaced on

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51142 of 2016 (2) dt.01-12-2016 2/2 the basis of confessional statement of his nephew Prince Kumar, hence, he has been made accused. He further submits that chargesheet has already been submitted against him, hence, there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence. He further submits that another co-accused, namely, Prince Kumar has since been granted the privilege of bail by this Court in Cr.Misc.No.50957 of 2016 on 28.11.2016 and since the victim was his own nephew and no overt-act has been committed, hence, he deserves the privilege of bail.

However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

Be that as it may, since the chargesheet has already been submitted and considering the facts and circumstance and the contention of the parties, let the above named petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Arwal in connection with Arwal P.S.Case No.147 of 2016/G.R.No.633 of 2016.

(Nilu Agrawal, J) B.Kr./- U T