Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30690 of 2012 (8) dt.17-10-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.30690 of 2012 ====================================================== Md. Shahabuddin son of S.M. Hasibullah, resident of Village-Pratappur, police station-Hussainganj, District-Siwan. .... .... Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 8 17-10-2012 The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Siwan Town P.S. Case No. 23 of 2005 registered under [STATUTE] and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would appear from perusal of the First Information Report of informant, Haidar Ali, that at the instruction of the petitioner, victim, Kamrul Haque, who was returning after allotment of symbol in assembly election was kidnapped by five persons named in the First Information Report and others on the point of fire arm from his vehicle and briefcase was checked out by the criminals, in which cash and other papers regarding the election were kept. In course of investigation, the statement of the victim, Kamrul Haque was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on release from the clutch of the kidnappers, in which he has detailed about his kidnapping at the instruction of the petitioner and also about keeping at the house of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30690 of 2012 (8) dt.17-10-2012 petitioner somedays but in course of trial of Dhrub Jaiswal and Sabbir Hussain through Sessions Trial No. 413 of 2006, the victim was examined as PW-11 and did not disclose the name of any person rather he totally go by with his earlier statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and both accused acquitted on trial. After more than five years, the police recorded the statement of some witnesses as detailed in paragraph nos. 35, 38 and 39 of the supplementary case diary, in which the witnesses have said about involvement of the petitioner but the statement appears to be hearsay. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner without disputing the fact that victim, Kamrul Haque, as PW-11 has retracted his earlier statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the trial of co-accused, Dhrub Jaiswal and Sabbir Hussain but further submitted that police has recorded the statements of the witnesses as detailed in paragraph nos. 35, 38 and 39 of supplementary case diary in spite of that, the petitioner has criminal antecedent. It appears that the informant, Haidar Ali, has detailed the name of five accused in his written report that five named accused and other unknown kidnapped victim, Kamrul Haque, who was returning to his bolero vehicle alongwith him and other after allotment of the symbol of the assembly election. Deposition of Kamrul Haque recorded in Sessions Trail No. 413 of 2006 as PW-11, which is annexed with this Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30690 of 2012 (8) dt.17-10-2012 application, while has supported the case of his kidnapping but he did not disclose the name of any person and further he also retracted to his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In paragraph nos. 37, 38 and 39 the statements of the witnesses Kashinath Singh, Mohd. Chand, Sabruddin Khan and Alam Khan are recorded, in which they have detailed about incident of kidnapping but witnesses Kashinath Singh and Mohd. Chand have stated that they have heard about the incident to the victim, Kamrul Haque whereas witness Alam Khan has stated about knowing of the incident of kidnapping on enquiry. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in connection with Siwan Town P.S. Case No. 23 of 2005. Safik/- (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 341

Statute Text:
Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Wrongfully restraining any person. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.