IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34159 of 2008 NAGENDRA TIWARI @ NARENDRA TIWARI, S/o. Raghu Nath Tiwari, R/o. village- Chhitrawalia, P.S. Ekma, District Saran at Chapra. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 17.12.2008 The case is under Section 364(A)/34 and 120B of the I.P.C. Heard. This is the fifth attempt of the petitioner. His prayer for bail having been rejected four times earlier by this Court vide orders dated 01.08.2005, 20.07.2006, 29.01.2007 & 07.09.2007. The first information report was lodged against four unknown criminals with the allegation that when the victim boy Rohit Kumar aged about six years and Priyanka Kumari aged about ten years were being taken on a Jeep to their school the criminals forcibly lifted Rohit Kumar from Jeep and fled away with him. It was alleged that the kidnapping was done for the purpose of extorting ransom money. The bail prayer was rejected on the statement of witnesses as referred to by the Addl.P.P. in paragraph Nos.7,8,11,12,13,14,17 & 18 of the case-diary, wherein 2 witnesses categorically named the petitioner stating that they had seen the petitioner lifting the boy from the Jeep and fleeing away with him on motorcycle. He also submitted that in para-75 of the case-diary the petitioner has confessed before the police giving the detailed description of the manner of the commission of the offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.08.2004. It is also submitted that in this case the charges have been framed before the trial Court on 6.8.2005. Learned Addl. P.P. submitted that the trial Court is taking steps for examining witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that co-accused Randhir Singh, Baiju Singh, Krishna Mohan Tiwary, Deepak Singh, Sarabjeet Singh and Heera Singh have been allowed bail by another Bench of this Court. Learned Addl. P.P. submitted that in the order dated 29.01.2007 as passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2907 of 2007, whereby petitioner’s prayer for bail was rejected for the third time, this matter has already been considered. Thus, hearing and consideration the allegations and the materials against the petitioner, I do not feel inclined to 3 reconsider the prayer for bail. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)