Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7969 of 2011 (3) dt.19-06-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.7969 of 2011 ====================================================== Idrish Gaddi .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar No.7, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 19-06-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 14th January 2011 by which the court has refused to discharge the petitioner on a petition filed by him on 21st September 2010. The present case is arising from Bairiya P.S.Case No. 49 of 2010 for the offences [STATUTE] who is father of victim boy, namely, Md. Asfaque Alam had gone to attend the marriage ceremony of son of Sikandar Gaddi on 8th April 2010. His son was watching the dance programme which ended in the morning whereafter the informant started searching but he could not trace him out which led to filing of the present case. Counsel for the petitioner submits that his name has Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7969 of 2011 (3) dt.19-06-2012 surfaced in the statement [STATUTE] named the petitioner as an accomplice of the other accused. He further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as he is a witness of Sessions Trial No. 85 of 1994 where the son of the informant and the informant himself were accused and in that case they have been awarded the sentence of life imprisonment. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of statement [STATUTE] e the statement made in the FIR as in the FIR it was a case that the son was watching the dance Programme whereas in the statement [STATUTE] had come and took him stating that he was called by his father. So far the point of mala fide is concerned, it appears from the record that the judgment of aforesaid case has been passed in 2002 and the present case has been lodged in 2010. So nexus with regard to that case and the present case is very remote and that cannot be a ground to take inference of mala fide. The statement of the victim who is only 10 years old, has named the petitioner which cannot be said that he has been tutored by any person. There may be some discrepancy as he is a minor boy that cannot be a ground to discharge the petitioner at this stage. With regard to authenticity or Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7969 of 2011 (3) dt.19-06-2012 otherwise, that will be seen at the time of trial. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the order impugned. This petition is accordingly, dismissed. Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, 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.