AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 119 wordsG.P. Srivastva, J.—I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
It is argued by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. nor his name came in the statement of kidnappee. It is true that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. nor the kidnappee disclosed his name in his statement but when the kidnappee was recovered the applicant was arrested on the spot and a mobile which was used in the kidnapping was recovered from his possession. It is pertinent to note that by the same mobile the ransum was demanded.
In the circumstances there is no ground for bail. The bail application is rejected.