IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.648 of 2009 AKHILESH THAKUR … … Petitioner Versus The STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioner: Shri Anirudh Kr.Sinha For the State: Shri Dashrath Mehta, APP ----------- 2. 9.1.2009 Heard. The earlier rejection order contained in Annexure-1 was passed in absence of learned counsel for the petitioner. Besides, the ground is of granting bail by some Benches of this Court by Annexure-3 series to other accused persons from whose custody the victims were recovered who were providing meal and keeping watch over them. On perusal of one of the orders what appears is that the Hon’ble Judges were probably misled to believe that it could be an offence which could be triable by a Magistrate of the First Class. If one could consider the rejection order, and that is not disputed, the case is under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and it was pending before shri D.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, for commitment 2 who now is reported to have committed the case to the court of Sessions. Two children who were abducted were recovered and it was this petitioner along with others who had committed the acts of abduction. Considering that, I am not inclined to direct the release of the petitioner on bail. However, the court below who could be seized with the trial of Bidupur P.S.Case No. 257 of 2006 could be impressed upon to consider that the petitioner is in custody for about 27 months and that the Court may require the learned Judge to buckle his belt up and also to pull alls strings attached to his fingers to ensure that the case is disposed of expeditiously. This appears necessary more so in face of the fact that some of the similarly situated accused persons have been admitted to bail by some Benches of this Court. The petition is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)