Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.691 of 2012 ====================================================== DWARIKANATH PRASAD, SON OF SRI BHOLANATH PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILALGE AND P.O. SUTIHARA, P.S.PARIHAR, DISTRICT SITAMARHI, AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 10, NAGAR PANCHAYAT SHEOHAR, P.O.& P.S. SHEOHAR, DISTRICT SHEOHAR. .... .... PETITIONER/S VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MR.AMIR SUBBHANI, IAS, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. MR.ABHAYANAND, IPS, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4. MR.VIVEK KUMAR, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIOENR, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SITAMARHI. 5. MR.SHAMIM, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, PARIHAR, POLICE STATION PARIHAR, DISTRICT SITAMARHI. 6. MR.CHANDRADEO RAM, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE PRINCIPAL, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, JAWAHAR NAGAR, P.O. SUTIHARA, DISTSRICT SITAMARHI. 7. MR.RAJIV RANJAN, SON OF NOT KOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE HOSTEL SUPERINTENDENT, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, JAWAHA NAGAR, P.O. SUTIHARA, DIST. SITAMARHI. 8. MR.SANJAY KUMAR, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE CLASS TEACHER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, JAWAHAR NAGAR, P.O. SUTIHARA, DIST. SITAMARHI. .... .... RESPONDENT/S ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Mohan For the Respondent/s : Mr. Neeraj Nandan Gp20 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) 5 18-07-2012 Heard the parties. 2. From the supervision report of the Superintendent of Patna High Court MJC No.691 of 2012 (5) dt.18-07-2012 2 Police, Sitamarhi bearing No. 4 dated 29.5.2012 annexed as Annexure-A to the second supplementary show cause it appears that one of the accused Rajesh Kumar was released by the I.O. on bail or bond after recording his statement. In a case under [STATUTE] generally police is not expected to release an offender on bail. If the Court had issued warrant against Rajesh Kumar then such action of the police is wholly unwarranted. The Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi has disclosed that although photograph of the missing boy got published in Punjab and Mumbai, but no information has been received regarding his whereabouts. 3. The complaint case filed by the petitioner is still pending. He will be at liberty to approach the Court for issuing directions to the I.O. to furnish to the Court the address of the accused who has been released on bail or bond by the police. If the Court has not withdrawn the warrant then the Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi will be personally responsible to ensure execution of the warrant against the accused Rajesh Kumar and ensure proper interrogation and investigation with a view to find out the son of the petitioner who is missing since 2007. 4. With the aforesaid direction the contempt petition is finally disposed of. Chandran (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Vikash Jain, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 365

Statute Text:
Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code. Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine a person. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.