The facts of the case are that, Radhakrishna Prasad, the son of the victim-Parameshwara Mehtho, filed a complaint alleging he received a phone call From unknown numbers stating that they have kidnapped his father and, they will release his father only if he listens to them or otherwise they will kill his father. Subsequently, for his confirmation, he called the same phone number and asked if he can talk to his father and his father informed him that when he was walking in the morning, some people kidnapped and taken him away in a car.
Later, those persons demanded Rs.25,00,000/- to release his father or else they will kill his father. Thereafter, at 2.00 p.m., the victim informed that those persons left him near a lonely place and he has noted down the number of the Tata Indica Car. Based on the information given by the victim, the Police apprehended the accused, arrested and seized their Car, and remanded them to judicial custody. custody. The bail petition of these accused came to be rejected by the Sessions Judge. Hence, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the record reveals that when accused Nos.1 to 3 kidnapped the father of the complainant and kept him, hostage, they demanded a huge amount for release from the father of the complainant. During the investigation, it was also revealed that accused Nos.1 and 2 took the car for hire and all these three accused persons kidnapped the victim. Though the accused persons left the victim without receiving the money, they have demanded Rs.25,00,000/- for releasing the father of the complainant who was kept hostage.
“Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aged 23 years, his father is running a brick factory, his name is not shown in the FIR, the charge sheet is filed and the petitioner-accused No.3 is in custody for more than two months, that itself is not a ground for granting bail in a heinous crime like demanding a huge ransom after kidnapping a person. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner-accused No.3 is not entitled to bail. Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed.”