1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURSIDCITON
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
J U D G M E N T
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,
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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURSIDCITON
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
J U D G M E N T
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,
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.
