IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1795 of 2008 LAKHAN PRASAD YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 7.5.2008 Heard. The petitioner Lakhan Prasad Yadav is an accused in a case registered under sections 364 (A),120(B), 302 and 201 IPC. As per the FIR there is allegation that the deceased Sanjeev Paswan who happened to be the son of the informant was running a STD Booth, who proceeded to his house at about 730 P.M. on 12.7.2007 after closing the said booth. The informant’s another son Ranjit Kumar@ Bittu also proceeded to house on the same day. Further case is that Ranjit Kumar @ Bittu reached the house at 7.45 P.M. but when by 8 O’ clock Sanjeev Paswan could not reach home, the informant along with other family members and co-villagers started searching him but the said Sanjeev Paswan could not be traced. The FIR further says that the informant had enmity with one Shailendra Prasad Yadav, son of Lakhan Prasad Yadav and due to the said enmity his son had been kidnapped by Shailendra Prasad Yadav and his associates. It is further stated that the bicycle and Chappal of the informant’s son Sanjeev Pawswan were recovered. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that - 2 - after two months of the alleged occurrence 164 statement of the informant was recorded and it is further stated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further stated that the FIR will disclose that the informant’s another son Ranjeet Kumar @ Bittu who had arrived at his house at about 745 P.M. did not disclose to the informant that he had seen the occurrence, rather the FIR discloses that when Sanjeev Paswan did not arrive by 8 P.M. then the informant and others started searching him. The statement recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. of Ranjeet Kumar @ Bittu in which he has stated that he is the eye-witness to the alleged occurrence is not believable. Learned advocate further submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedents. On the other hand, learned advocate of the informant submitted that in the 164 statement Ranjeet Kumar @ Bittu, another son of the informant has stated that he has seen the petitioner and others forcibly taking away his brother. I am of the opinion that this statement of Ranjeet Kumar @ Bittu appears to be doubtful in view of the statement made by the informant in the FIR as well as under section 164 Cr.P.C. In such view of the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner should be enlarged on bail. - 3 - Accordingly, the petitioner, Lakhan Prasad Yadav is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of CJM, Nawada in Rajauli p.s.case no.80 of 2007. ( Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam ) HR