IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21901 of 2009 LAL BABU @ LAL BAHADUR SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03 24.08.2009 Heard both sides. Sole petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted under Sections 364 and 120B of the Penal Code. Prosecution case is that informant’s son Santosh @ Butti along with his friend had gone to attend certain marriage reception. He did not return. The nephew of the informant Manishankar Singh @ Paraki Singh later on informed him that co-accused named therein had forcibly lifted the son of the informant and one Anant Singh. The petitioner is, therefore, named in the F.I.R. along with other accused persons. It appears that the aforesaid Manishankar Singh @ Paraki Singh in course of investigation, made similar statement before the Investigating Officer. It appears that aforesaid Manishankar Singh @ Paraki Singh, in his statement made under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C., has not stated about the disclosure of these facts to the informant. It further appears that one of the co- accused, namely Binay Singh subsequently made a confessional statement setting out the graphic details of the occurrence that had taken place. He has named several persons but not the petitioner. One of the witnesses, namely Mukesh Kumar Singh @ Bulla Singh is on record stating that he had received a call 2 from the accused persons that two wickets are down. This court finds that apart from the fact that he is named in the F.I.R. there is/are materials to connect his complicity with the occurrence. This court has also taken into account that the petitioner was also made an accused in a case under Section 302 of the Penal Code. Having regard to the materials as reflected from the impugned order and after considering the submissions advanced by the counsel, this court is not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Prayer for bail is, accordingly, rejected. Sym/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)