The court emphasizes the prima facie evidence of kidnapping, supporting denial of bail despite appellant's claims of false implication.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

4 06-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Public Prosecution for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the informant.

2. Records have been placed before this Court to consider the prayer of the appellant for suspension of his sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal.

3. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 28.11.2019 and 05.12.2019, respectively passed by the learned 5^th Additional Session Judge, Muzaffarpur in connection with Sessions Trial No. 466 of 2017 arising out of Bochaha P.S. Case No. 62 of 2017/ GR No. 1656 of 2017 and has been ordered to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

4. The prosecution case is based on the First Information Report submitted by the father of the victim, who has deposed as P.W.-4. According to written information, the son of the informant left his house for school but he did not return to home. During his search, he got a call from unknown number i.e. 7607390430 on his wife’s mobile number and she was informed that her son has been kidnapped and a demand of ransom of Rs. 7,00000/- (Seven Lakh) was made. It is further alleged that a threatening was given to her that if she will disclose to anyone, she would be subjected to dire consequences.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim boy in this case was recovered on the very next day of the occurrence from the house of one Rajeev Kumar. It is submitted that this appellant is said to have been arrested from the said house where the victim boy had been confined, however, in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim boy has not taken name of this appellant. According to him, it is a case of false implication.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State would submit that this appellant was arrested from the spot where the victim boy had been confined in the house of co- convict, Rajeev Kumar. The attention of this Court has been drawn towards the deposition of the victim boy wherein he has stated that on 01.05.2017, T.I.P. was conducted in which he had identified all the five accused persons including this appellant.

He also identified the appellant in the court during trial.

7. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances and the evidences which were prima facie gone through, looking into the material showing that this appellant was arrested from the house of co-convict, Rajeev Kumar at Samastipur where the victim boy was confined and he has been identified by the victim boy, we are not inclined to grant suspension of sentence and release on bail to the appellant.

8. It is submitted that the appellant has remained in jail for seven and half years but this appeal has not yet been listed for hearing. This being the position, we grant liberty to the appellant to file an application seeking early hearing of the appeal if it is not listed for hearing within one year from today. If such an application is filed, the same shall be placed before the Court at the earliest opportunity.

9. The prayer for suspension of sentence and bail is refused.

10. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only prima-facie and tentative for the purpose of consideration of prayer for suspension of sentence and bail only which would not cause prejudice to the either parties.