IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2439 of 2008 PRAMOD CHAUDHRY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03/ 08-05-2008 Heard. The petitioner is an accused in a case under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that in the evening of 14.10.2006 five unknown persons kidnapped Vinod Kumar Mahto, the son of the informant. It appears that Vinod Mahto returned back home on 16.10.2006. His statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he named the petitioner and others. It further appears that during course of investigation witnesses Raju Shukla and Ramanand Mahto also named the petitioner before the Police. Learned counsel submitted that Semera P.S. Case No. 33 of 2006 was registered for the kidnapping of one Tarkeshwar Mahto. He submitted that in that case petitioner Pramod Chaudhary was put on Test Identification Parade but the victim failed to identify him. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, opposed the bail and referred to para 45 of the case diary and submitted that Vinod Mahto clearly stated before the Police that the petitioner had not participated in that occurrence. Learned counsel then referred Annexure-4 to the application and submitted that on 6.6.207 a petition on behalf of the victim before A.C.J.M. Bagaha was filed informing that the petitioner had not participated in the alleged occurrence whereas the T.I.P. of - 2 - the petitioner in Semera P.S. Case No. 33 of 2006 was conducted on 5.6.2007. It appears that the petitioner was remanded on 7.9.2007. In the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Prayer is refused. The court below is directed to expedite the disposal of the case. S.Sb/- (Madhavendra Saran, J.)