MEGHLAL MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution.

(2.) Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 364A, 302,201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Jamua P.S. Case no. 107 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No. 1168 of 2010. There is direct allegation against the petitioner and the other co-accuse to have kidnapped the minor son of the informant, whose dead body was recovered from the well. The witnesses have also stated they had seen those persons, who had kidnapped the son of the deceased, while returning back from the said well after hearing the sound that something was thrown in well and after that the dead body of the deceased was recovered.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Earlier, the Sanha was lodged by the informant in which petitioner was not named. It is further submitted that petitioner has been named due to previous enmity. It has also submitted that other co-accused have been granted bail. Learned counsel accordingly prays for bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, in view of the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner to have kidnapped the deceased and witnesses have stated that they had seen the petitioner and other co-accused returning from the said well after hearing the sound of throwing something in the well, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.