- (1.) The petitioner of this revision application calls in question the legality of the order dated 24.03.2014 passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi in S.T. No.653 of 2013 arising out of Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.89 of 2013 instituted under Sections 364-A/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner for his discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code'), has been rejected.
(2.) The relevant and necessary facts for disposal of the issue involved in this application are as follows:- At the instance of the informant Rakhi Kumari, the aforesaid case was lodged on 16.04.2013 with the allegation that on 15.04.2013 at about 6.30 a.m. four persons came in a white Bolero vehicle and took away her husband Dr. Shivanand Kashi on the false pretext of treatment of their cow but more than 24 hours have been lapsed, her husband did not return back to home and she tried to contact her husband on his mobile phone but the same is not working. As such she has got suspicion that her husband has been abducted for ransom by unknown persons.
(3.) After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against seven accused persons including this petitioner. Whereafter the cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Before the court, a petition under Section 227 of the Code was filed by the petitioner for his discharge on the ground that there is no evidence on record to show the complicity of this petitioner besides the confessional statement of some of the co-accused persons. The court below after considering the evidence on record and the submissions of the learned counsels rejected the prayer for discharge holding that co-accused persons have disclosed the name of the present petitioner and also disclosed the facts on the basis of which the recovery has been effected and the present petitioner is the person who was well acquainted and well versed with the mobile number of the victim. The court below has further held that the petitioner was the person who contacted and called victim from mobile and this fact has been well corroborated by evidences available on record. From perusal of the call details report, there is prima facie case against this petitioner. Hence, this revision.;