IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31318 of 2008 BINAY PRASAD Versus STATE OF BIHAR For the Petitioner:- Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Respondnet:- Mr. R.Singh Shastri, A.P.P. For the Informant:- Mr. Rama Pratap Singh, Advocate and Mr. G. Rajesh, Advocate ----------- 3 13.8.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Learned counsel for the State as well as Learned counsel for the informant Cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Sections 365, 368 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitioner is that he was kidnapped and kept in confinement by the accused persons. Allegation is that the informant went with one Mani Kumar and one Santosh Kumar on their Motorcycle who allured him for giving Rs.2,000/- for taking action against the petitioner. Thereafter he was taken to one house belonging to the petitioner, where, in the room petitioner was sitting along with other co-accused persons and it is alleged that he was forced to make some statement in front of Camera in favour of the petitioner with regard to the earlier case filed by him against the petitioner. Thereafter he was also directed by them to make such statement before the Court. Further allegation is that he was confined there for two days and on the efforts of his family members, Police also reached there. Thereafter the accused persons fled away and he was recovered by the Police. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant was his driver and he has earlier lodged an F.I.R. against him under Sections 341,323,324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated that the petitioner he has been granted bail in that case. He submits that, in fact, the driver damaged his vehicle by driving in some inebriated condition. When he was scolded by the petitioner, in retaliation he has filed that case and on that score only within a period of about 15 days another false case under Sections 365 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code has been filed by him. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. itself goes to show that he worked under the allurement. That apart, the persons who have been examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. have also stated that false case has been lodged by the driver for the aforesaid reason. Further submission of the petitioner is that after thorough investigation Police has submitted Final Form clearly stating therein that the case has been falsely instituted against the petitioner. However, protest petition was filed by the informant and the Magistrate has taken cognizance under Sections 365,368 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner further submits that it has come that Superintendent of Police , Aurangabad while supervising the case, has clearly stated that it has come during the course of investigation that the Maternal Uncle of the informant namely, Sudhir Singh has stated that he is working in the said Lodge (the alleged place of confinement) for 20 years. It is further stated that the petitioner visits that Lodge on few occasions. When he was confronted as to why he did not inform the Police, regarding this he - 3 - could not answer. Submission of the petitioner is that the entire case is nothing except a false drama. Learned counsel further states that petitioner is in Jail since 30.5.2008. Further submission is that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent except having been implicated in another case as has been stated above. Learned counsel for the State submits that several witnesses have supported the case during the course of investigation. Learned counsel for the informant submits that informant was recovered by the Police and that goes to prove confinement after abduction. 10-12 witnesses have supported the case of recovery. However, he fairly concedes that the petitioner was not examined by any Doctor during the course of investigation for being inducted any anesthetic drug for making him unconscious, as has been alleged in the F.I.R. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties I direct the petitioner namely, Binay Prasad, to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of S.D.J.M., Daud Nagar, Aurangabad in connection with Obera P.S. Case No. 42 of 2008. P.K. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)