The central legal point established in the judgment is that mere suspicion and lack of legal evidence are not sufficient to frame charges against an accused under Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

D.K. Sinha, J.-The instant Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 27.07.2010 passed by the A.J.C., F.T.C.VIII, Ranchi by which the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure, in Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 168 of 2009, corresponding to G.R.No.3157 of 2009 in Sessions Trial No.250 of 2010 for the alleged offence under Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code was rejected and the petitioner was called upon to stand charged. The petitioner further requested for stay of the further proceeding in Sessions Trial No 250 of 2010 during pendency of this Criminal Revision.

2. The prosecution story in short was that the informant's son Abhimanyu Bhatia had left his Hotel M/s Punjab Sweet House on 30.07.2009 at about 10.45 p.m. for his home but when he could not reach his home by 11.30 p.m., the father-informant of Abhimanyu Bhatia smelt foul play and he along with the members of his family came out in search of Abhimanyu Bhatia but he could not be located. He attempted to call on his cell phone but of no avail. The informant Ashish Bhatia suspected that his son Abhimanyu Bhatia might have been abducted for ransom by unknown culprits as such, F.I.R. was lodged against unknown under Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code by instituting Lower Bazar P.S. Case No.168 of 2009 on 31.07.2009.

3. During course of investigation, the son of the informant Abhimanyu Bhatia was recovered from within the jurisdiction of Jagarnathpur Police Station after an encounter with the culprits wherein three of them namely Binod Fauzi, Mannu Singh and Raju Singh were killed. Other three culprits viz. Arbind Rai, Santosh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar were also arrested who tried to escape. Their confessional statements were recorded wherein they had named the accomplice who had actively participated in the commission of the alleged offence by which Abhimanyu Bhatia was abducted for ransom. One more culprit Sandeep Kumar Singh was arrested and his confessional statement was also recorded but none of the above accused had taken the name of the petitioner as the accomplice, the learned Counsel added. However, the petitioner was arrested on suspicion without material whatsoever and charge-sheet was submitted against him for the alleged offence under Section 364(A)/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The prayer of the petitioner-Ashish Kumar Sinha @ Antim Singh @ Ashish Singh under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was rejected by a common order recorded by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi on 27.07.2010 by mentioning common and omnibus allegation that there was materials on record to frame charge against the accused under the alleged Sections in which charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance of the offence was taken.

4. Learned Counsel Mr. Lala further submitted that the complicity of the petitioner-Ashish Kumar Sinha @ Antim Singh @ Ashish Singh appeared in the memo of evidence at page 30 of the record of the Sessions Trial No.267 of 2010, wherein it was suspected that the petitioner and the co-accused Binod Fauzi had arranged a Rino vehicle to the principal accused Chandan Sonar to be used in abduction of the victim and that Binod Fauzi was killed in course of encounter with the police party but what was the basis for arriving at such inference has not been disclosed by the Investigting Officer so as to substantiate the allegation against the petitioner in the Trial Court.

5. Learned Counsel further asserted that no legal evidence in the entire case diary so as to establish the nexus of the petitioner with the co-accused and the alleged occurrence. The confessional statements of the apprehended accused viz. Raju Choubey, Alok Singh, Rakesh Kumar and Sailesh Singh was recorded but none of them implicated the petitioner in any manner that he had arranged Rino vehicle which was used in abduction of the victim. The petitioner was not even put on T.I.P. at any point of time during investigation or even after c