IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22392 of 2010 PINTU KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 6. 8.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. It is submitted that the F.I.R. under Section 364(A) and other provisions of the Penal Code is against unknown. The victim is alleged to have been persuaded by co-accused Kunal, his class mate, to go to a movie hall where the petitioner is alleged to have joined. Altogether there are 16 accused. 15 of them including Kunal have been enlarged on bail. Counsel for the State relies upon the impugned order to submit that the petitioner plays a primary role in the abduction and call for ransom. Considering that several persons are alleged to have been involved in the episode and who have been granted bail, the Court finds it difficult to deny the privilege of bail to the petitioner on any technical interpretation of evidence recorded during investigation. This observation is confined for the purposes of bail only. Considering the facts and circumstances of 2 the case, let the petitioner above named be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in connection with Rajiv Nagar P.S. Case No. 144 of 2008. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)