Kidnapping for ransom or ransom for receiving evidence of Section 365 Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Sections 2 (n) and 7 (e) Certain telephonic calls made by detainees to the High Court and the kidnappers. The release of the bank manager was received in connection with the demand for ransom and it was proved that at the relevant time the kidnapper's father was issued a sum of ransom to clarify the related bank and thus The incident set up the prosecution's case regarding the defendant's demand for ransom for the release of the kidnapper and the prosecution Extreme evidence convinced the lower courts that there was no doubt that the abduction was done for that purpose. Receiving the ransom and demanding ransom for his release were not only a charge of abduction against the accused persons but it has also been proved that such abduction was carried out for abduction and There was also no hostility or illicit desire available between the background suspects and the kidnappers, and they did not even know each other before. The only proud reason for demanding ransom for the release of the abductor was his. The father was a very relevant person providing evidence in connection with the abduction and ransom demand, and they both appeared before the trial court. Made permanent statements in this regard and the kidnapper and his father had no reason to falsely implicate the accused in such a case. The Nature Prosecution successfully proved its case against the accused without reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court ruled.
