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.