IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40637 of 2008 CHHOTU SINGH @ CHANDAN KUMAR SINGH @ CHANDAN SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 01.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. None appears on behalf of the informant-Opposite party no. 2, despite valid service of notice. The prayer for bail of the petitioner in a Police case under Section 364 A of the Penal Code was rejected earlier on 23.5.2007 in Cr. Misc. No. 13482 of 2007. He is in custody since 26.4.2006. It is submitted that the informant is the alleged victim stating that the petitioner took him along on his motorcycle when the informant was handed over to the abductors. Considering this the prayer for bail was earlier rejected. In his deposition during trial the informant has named one Raju as the person he was traveling with making out entirely a new case that his hands and feet were tied while he was sleeping. He denied identifying the petitioner in the dock. The person Raju named in the deposition does not find reference in the F.I.R. Since the petitioner, Chhotu Singh @ Chandan Kumar Singh @ Chandan Singh has not been identified in the dock by the victim, let him enlarge on bail on his furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Begusarai in 2 Neema Chandpura P.S. Case No. 37 of 2004. The court below is directed to deal appropriately with the inconsistencies in the statement of the victim in the F.I.R. and in his deposition during trial including under Section 311 Cr.P.C., if necessary, and if the trial were to fail because of the informant/victim not supporting the allegations, the court below is directed to proceed appropriately against those concerned both under the provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure and Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)