IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33776 of 2008 BIJENDRA YADAV @ LAMBU & ARVIND @ BINOD YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR With Cr.Misc. No.28694 of 2008 SATYENDRA RAM Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 26.11.2008 No one appears on behalf of petitioners Bijendra Yadav @ Lambu & Arbind @ Binod Yadav. Heard Sri Rudra Deo, Advocate for petitioner Satyendra Ram and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The two petitions arise out of Dehri P.S.Case No.11 of 2008 under Section 364(A) of the IPC. The railway bridge connecting Aurangabad and Dehri-on- Sone on the river Sone was being constructed by AFCON. One Rajendra Bhav Rav Gahwane was an electrician employed in the above noted company and was residing in Dehri in a rented house. He went missing. A missing report was lodged by one of the officers of the company but subsequently, the informant who happened to be the Sala of the victim started receiving calls along with his family members both on landline and mobile phone asking payment of ransom for the release of the said victim who had been kidnapped. The family members of the victim were called to Bihar and they were again asked by the - 2 - culprits to ensure payment of ransom by the company which had employed the victim. During the course of investigation petitioners, Bijendra Yadav @ Lambu for whom none has appeared today before me were arrested. He confessed his guilt graphically stating as to how the victim was picked up and where he was confined and in that course he pointed out that the boring house of petitioner Satyendra Ram was the place where the victim had been kept. The police reached there and found the small cabinet lock from outside. It gave repeated calls so as to causing whether there was any one inside it and some one responded through a very weak voice. The lock was broken and it was found that it was the above noted Sri Rajendra Bhav Rav Gahwane who had been kidnapped by the criminals. The court could not know as to what could be the defence of petitioners Bijendra Yadav @ Lambu and Arvind @ Binod Yadav but the learned counsel for petitioner Satyendra Ram submitted that the petitioner had reached out his land around the boring and boring house the person and was longer in possession of the same. It was contended that the petitioner boring a very clean sheet and the material available in the case diary could never be sufficient - 3 - for justifying refusal of bail to him. It may be pointing out that the land and the boring in question which situate within the district of Kaimur which is known for its agricultural achievements. Simply unthinkable that a farmer who has sunk a boring in his field could be leasing the same out. The defence appears for the defence sake. The man remained confined in the boring for 12 days. It was a month of January and in a month of January no farmer of Bhabua could have abandoned going to the fields which must be sown with Rubbi crops. Definite knowledge could be attributable to petitioner Satyendra Ram as well, if not of abduction, of course, of an abducted man being confined in his boring house. The two petitions appear meritless. Petitions are dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )