IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr. Misc. No.9926 of 2010
VIJAY KUMAR MANDAL, son of Late Nagendra Mandal
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
5/ 21.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
Petitioner is an accused in Begusarai Mufassil P.S. case no.
315 of 2006 dated 14.11.2006 under Section 364(A) of the Indian
Penal Code.
The informant Mohan Kumar stated that on 06.10.2006 his
sister Mamta Devi along with her husband Anand Chaudhary were
traveling on a Maruti Car. They were proceeding towards Purnea. On
enquiry an unknown person spoke on Mobile that on account of some
fault in the car they had proceeded toward Bhagalpur and from where
they will travel to Purnea in the morning. On the next day i.e.
13.10.2006, all efforts to contact Anandji on mobile failed. However,
on the same day on 13.10.2006 at 3.00 P.M., Anandji somehow
informed his brother that he was abducted along with his wife for
which a ransom of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Fifty lacs) was demanded.
The petitioner moved this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 29908
of 2007 suppressing the material facts that he had moved earlier. The
order sheet of the Sessions Judge refusing the bail was interpolated
and changed.
The informant filed a cancellation application and finally
the bail granted to the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 29908 of 2007 was
cancelled.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not
-2-
named in the First Information Report. He further submits that both
the victims have not stated the name of this petitioner, as accused. It is
further submitted that many of the co-accused namely Pankaj Singh,
Chandan Singh, Purusottam Singh, Shiv Shankar Yadav and Lakhan
Mandal have already been granted bail. He submits that as he was in
jail, he could not have produced a fake order sheet in this Court. The
petitioner is in custody after cancellation of bail since 16.08.2008 and
prior to cancellation of bail he had also remained in custody for about
six months. He further submits that Mobile no. 9430180857 used in
the crime, does not belong to the petitioner. He further submits that
the statement of Anandji that in course of conversation, accused
persons took name of the petitioner may not be a reliable material for
refusing bail.
The petitioner has already been charge-sheeted in this case.
It further appears from the petition itself that there was some
suppression of materials facts in this case. Besides this the impugned
order of Sessions Judge rejecting bail was changed.
In view of the above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner for the present. His prayer for bail is rejected. However, he
may renew his prayer for bail after three months.
Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)