IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36433 of 2010 RAJESH CHAUDHARY Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03 09.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned P.P. for the State. Although, petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but in course of investigation, victim was recovered from Allahabad and petitioner as well as some other co-accused persons were also arrested along with the aforesaid victim. Furthermore, the statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. in which he specifically named the petitioner and also disclosed that while he was being taken away after kidnapping, the vehicle was being driven by this petitioner. The stand of learned counsel for the petitioner is that when petitioner was arrested by the Police, he disclosed this fact that he was only driver and he was not aware about the factum of kidnapping and he was engaged on that date only for carrying a patient from Behea to Allahabad and again he reiterated the aforesaid fact at para 89 of the case diary. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner tried his best to convince me about the innocence of the petitioner but I am not, at all, convinced with his submission. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of petitioner (Rajesh Chaudhary) in connection with Behea P.S. Case No. 13 of 2010 2 stands rejected. Petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of the charge. Shahzad ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)