IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44416 of 2008 RAJESH DAS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 14.1.2009 Heard Mr. Saroj Shandilya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Indiwar Kumari, learned A.P.P. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. in a case under sections 364, 363A and 367 of the Indian Penal Code. The son of the informant went missing and for that he reported the matter to the police which was reduced into a station diary entry. That report did not bear the petitioner’s name. After one year and four and a half months of the occurrence the written report was given in which specific case was made out against the petitioner that it was he who had taken away the son of the informant and caused him to to disappear. Paragraph-40 of the case diary indicates as if the informant suspected other persons also in causing disappearance of his son after his kidnapping. This could be the statement of Chunchun Singh in para-49 of the case diary as if the informant merely suspecting the petitioner having his hand in the crime. Let petitioner named above be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, in connection with Teghra P.S. case no.52 of 2008. sudip ( Dharnidhar Jha,J )