IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38588 of 2009 SHAMBHU RAI, son of Sri Gowardhan Rai, resident of village Harshyam Chak, P.S. Akilpur, District Patna Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 13.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner faces prosecution for offence u/ss 363/ 364 I.P.C. with an allegation that he too was one of the member of the gang which had kidnapped the two children of the informant alongwith others. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that when the petitioner has not been named in 164 Cr.P.C. statement of one of the two victim child and the implication of the petitioner only comes by way of statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the same girl child, the case of the prosecution as against the petitioner would not inspire confidence. In the opinion of this Court had the matter remained confined to that extent the petitioner could have got the benefit of omission of the name of the petitioner in 164 statement of the victim girl but then 2 Surendra/ this Court would find that apart from the other child, the son of the informant, who too was kidnapped had specifically named one Shambhu which is the first name of the petitioner. In this background when in the confessional statement of co-accused the petitioner was specifically named as also by both the victim child in their statement before the Police the role played by the petitioner with other co-accused persons in the alleged incident, stand fully corroborated. That being so, when the petitioner is in custody since 13.7.2009 and there is also no direct specific statement of his criminal antecedent in the bail application, this Court would not be inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present till he would complete one year of his judicial custody. With the aforementioned observations, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)