Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41795 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -36 Year- 2014 Thana -GURUA District- GAYA ====================================================== Manoj Kumar .... .... Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party.

====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.43679 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -36 Year- 2014 Thana -GURUA District- GAYA ====================================================== Santosh Yadav .... .... Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party.

====================================================== Appearance :

(In Cr.Misc. No.41795 of 2014) For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Anil Kr. Singh No.1 (App) (In Cr.Misc. No.43679 of 2014) For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sharda Kumari (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 27-01-2015 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State.

The petitioners are languishing in custody since 16.04.2014 in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 365/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The accusation is of kidnapping the minor son of the informant and demanding ransom through Mobile.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41795 of 2014 (3) dt.27-01-2015 2 / 2 petitioners that in 164 Cr. P.C., statement though the victim has named the petitioner Santosh Yadav and has not named the petitioner Manoj Kumar but has not alleged that the petitioner Santosh Yadav in any way threatened the victim rather the statement of the victim suggests that the petitioners allowed the victim to go to his village home. The statements have been made in paragraph no. 3 of both petitions that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. Learned A.P.P. after going through the case diary suggested that it has not been verified whether Mobile through which ransom was demanded were registered in the name of the petitioners. Considering the 164 Cr. P.C. statement of the victim, let the petitioners, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M.

Ist Class, Sherghati (Gaya) in connection with Gurua P.S. Case No. 36 of 2014. .

U.K./- (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) U T