Fekan Yadav vs Satendra Yadav @ Boss Yadav @ Satendra Kumar, Khalifan Yadav, and The State Of Bihar Secretary, Home Department

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1685 OF 2017 [Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.5510 of 2017]

FEKAN YADAV … APPELLANT

VERSUS

SATENDRA YADAV @ BOSS YADAV @ SATENDRA KUMAR AND ORS. …RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 were apprehending their arrest in Karpi

P.S. Case No.07/17, registered under Section 363, 365 read with

Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, they filed an anticipatory bail

petition to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to them, before

the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jehanabad in A.B.P.No.148 of

2017. Learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 16.02.2017, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2017.09.20 16:23:17 IST Reason:

rejected their petition. Thereafter they filed a petition before the 2

High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous

No.12482 of 2017. The High Court vide order dated 27.4.2017,

allowed the petition and granted anticipatory bail to them, subject

to certain conditions stated therein. The appellant has questioned

the legality and correctness of the said order in this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the son of

the appellant, namely, Bittu Kumar was kidnapped by

respondents 1 and 2 and other co-accused on 3.1.2017. The

appellant could not trace the child despite his best efforts.

Therefore, the appellant lodged FIR with the Karpi Police Station.

It is further submitted that few months prior to the kidnapping,

the respondent No.1 had threatened the appellant that he will kill

the appellant’s son. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in

granting anticipatory bail to respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

4. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar, the third respondent

herein, submits that having regard to the gravity of accusations

made against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it is absolutely

necessary for their custodial interrogation. 3

5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that

respondents 1 and 2 have been falsely implicated in the case.

Therefore, the High Court has rightly granted pre-arrest bail to

the respondents 1 and 2.

6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned

counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on

record.

7. It is evident from the FIR that the appellant has informed

that his son, Bittu Kumar was a student of Baal Siksha Niketan

Karpi, Arwal. On 3.1.2017 at about 3 p.m. Bittu Kumar left for

school from his residence by boarding a tempo in village Ramapur

Mushari. But he did not reach the school and on 4.1.2017 the

appellant came to know that his son, Bittu Kumar had

disappeared on the way. Six months prior to the incident, the

first respondent had threatened the appellant that he will be

made issueless. Three months prior to the incident, the first

respondent, Satendra Yadav had gone to the school of Bittu

Kumar and called him outside the school. However, Bittu Kumar

did not join the first respondent. That is why the appellant has 4

raised his suspicion against respondent Nos. 1 and 2, that they

have kidnapped his son. Learned Sessions Judge examined the

case diary and found that the witnesses examined by the IO

during the investigation had supported the case of the

prosecution. The victim boy has not been traced so far.

8. The High Court without assigning any reasons has granted

the anticipatory bail. Having regard to the nature and gravity of

the accusations, we are of the view that the High Court was not

justified in granting anticipatory bail. Hence, the appeal is allowed

and the order of the High Court dated 27.4.2017 in Crl.Misc.

No.12482 of 2017 is hereby set aside.

………………………………J. (J. CHELAMESWAR)

………………………………J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER) New Delhi;

September 19, 2017.