IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16496 of 2009 PINTU YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 29.07.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking bail in a case instituted under section 364-A IPC. As per FIR, the victim boy, aged about 5 ½ years was taken away by one Chalu Sharma on the plea that they shall go to Mela (fair). The victim boy thereafter did not return as a result whereof the FIR was lodged naming him as the sole accused. It is an admitted position at the Bar that the victim boy returned after sometime and that a sum of Rs.3, 30,000/- was paid by way of ransom by the informant for securing the release of the boy from the hands of the kidnappers. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the fact that some of the co-accuseds of this case, namely, Madan Singh, Chandan Singh @ Biswajeet Singh, Binay Singh and Manish Mahto have named him as one of the associates without assigning specific role in the present occurrence, there is nothing on record to connect him with the crime. It is contended that the victim boy made a statement under section 164 Cr. P.C. in which he has named only two persons, namely, the FIR named accused Chalu Sharma and one Chandan. It is contended that the petitioner has no - 2 - criminal antecedent and that he is in custody since 30.01.2009. Learned APP, on the other hand, stated that apart from the confessional statement recorded in the present case of so many co-accuseds, naming the petitioner as one of the associates in the crime, it has come in paragraph 99 of the case diary( which records re-statement of the informant) that he was taken by Chandan, one of the prime accuseds, to Nokha where he was introduced to few persons including the petitioner and it was disclosed to him that the petitioner and others present there would help him in rescuing the boy. Having regard to the facts appearing on record, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner to bail. His prayer for bail is accordingly rejected. However, considering the overall view of the case and the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 30.01.2009, this court observes that if the trial of the case is not taken up within ten months from the date of receipt/communication of this order in the court below, the petitioner shall have liberty to renew his prayer for bail hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )