IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21809 of 2009 SUBODH YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03 19.08.2009 Heard both sides. Petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code. The brother of the informant was kidnapped at gun point. It appears, few hours later he returned back. His statement was initially recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and subsequently, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The victim has set out in detail the manner in which the accused persons kidnapped him at gun point and carried to different places and assaulted him. It is further disclosed therein that due to arrival of the Police party he was released and thereafter he came back home. This Court finds from his statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as 164 Cr.P.C. that he has categorically named the petitioner as one of the accused involved in kidnapping and carrying him to different places. Learned A.P.P. submits that there is also a confessional statement of co-accused Brajesh which 2 corroborates the statement which has been made by the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that considering the peculiar facts of the case, the allegation at best may constitute wrongfull confinement. Having regard to the materials reflected from the records, this Court is not inclined to admit him on bail. Prayer for bail is accordingly, rejected. Petitioner, however, is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months from the date of received/communication of the order in the court below, if in the meanwhile the trial of the case is not taken up. P.K. (K.K. Mandal, J.)