Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.29973 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Bhushan Yadav @ Braj Bhushan Yadav S/O Sri Makun Yadav Resident Of Village- Salempur, P.S.- Jehanabad, (Kraun O.P) Dist-Jehanabad. 2. Umesh Yadav S/O Laldash Yadav Resident of Village- Salempur, P.S.- Jehanabad, (Kraun O.P) Dist-Jehanabad. .... .... Petitioners. Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 3 04-10-2012 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners, learned counsels for the informant and the State. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] . It is alleged that the informant’s brother went to grinding mill on 16.12.2011 and thereafter he did not return. Subsequently, his bag containing flour, slipper, muffler and other articles were recovered. The First Information Report was registered on 17.12.2011 when the informant claimed that from the villagers he came to know that thirteen F.I.R. named accused persons including the petitioners abducted the brother of the informant. It is submitted by learned senior counsel Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29973 of 2012 (3) dt.04-10-2012 2 / 4 2 for the petitioners that the informant neither in the F.I.R. nor in the subsequent statement disclosed the names of the persons who disclosed the names of the petitioners to him. On 17.12.2011 several witnesses were examined by the police but they did not name these petitioners. In paragraph no. 62 of the case diary after five months, the wife of the victim and other witnesses in paragraph no. 65 of the case diary claim themselves to be eye witnesses of kidnapping by petitioners and others. Similar statements of other witnesses have been recorded in paragraph nos. 67 and 68 of the case diary. Hence, it is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the statements of the wife of the victim and other witnesses have been recorded after five months and had these witnesses seen the occurrence, there was no occasion of not mentioning the same in the F.I.R. It is submitted by learned counsel for the informant that the petitioners are named in the First Information Report when initially Masaurhi P.S. Case No.491 of 2012 was registered on 17.12.2011 but subsequently the same was transferred as Jehanabad Rail (Taregna) P.S. Case No. 09 of 2012 where the F.I.R. was registered on 27.03.2012 as a result of which the statements of the witnesses were Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29973 of 2012 (3) dt.04-10-2012 3 / 4 3 belatedly recorded. It is submitted by learned A.P.P. for the State that the victim used to protest against the petitioners offering hospitality to extremists hence the victim was eliminated. A statement has been made in paragraph no. 14 of the petition that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. Considering the suspicious nature of accusation by the informant and delayed naming of petitioners by others, let the petitioners, above named, be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today in connection with Jehanabad Rail (Taregna) P.S. Case No. 09 of 2012 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 Railway Judicial Magistrate, Patna Junction, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the petitioners shall be accepted on affidavit being filed before the learned court below that the petitioners will co-operate in investigation and the said affidavit shall be transmitted by the learned court below to the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29973 of 2012 (3) dt.04-10-2012 4 / 4 4 concerned Investigating Officer of the present case. Non co-operation in investigation by the petitioners will give liberty to the prosecution to file an application for cancellation of bail of petitioners. U.K./- (Dinesh Kumar Singh, 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.