IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38723 of 2010 ARUN PASWAN, SON OF SRI JAGAT PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MODANIPUR BARAHIA, P.S. KURTHA, DISTRICT-ARWAL………………PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR………………OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Aslam Ansari, A.P.P. ----------- 3. 12.1.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner’s prayer for bail had earlier been rejected vide order dated 29.3.2010 passed in Criminal Misc. No.9829 of 2010 (Annexure-‘1’ to this application). It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the informant, who has been examined as P.W.1, though has supported the case of the prosecution but in paragraph no.12, he has stated that he could not recognize the accused persons, namely, Satya Narain, Nageshwar alias Nago and Arun. 2 However, in view of the fact that the victim boy, after his recovery, has stated in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that the petitioner was one of the kidnappers and also the fact that the mobile phone, which has been used for ransom, had also been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present. This application is dismissed at this stage. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 29.7.2009 and the trial is going on and from the report sent by the court concerned, kept at flag ‘A’, it appears that one of the prosecution witnesses has been examined, it would be expected from the court concerned that it would take every steps for conclusion of the trial at the earliest, preferably within six months. If the trial is not concluded within six months, the petitioner, if so advised, would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. P.S./Sanjay-II ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)