IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35181 of 2008 AJAY KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 12.9.2008 Heard. The petitioner is named in the FIR of a case under Sections 364 and 34 of the IPC and the allegation is that the petitioner along with some others came to the house of the informant and searched for one Mukesh Poddar who was present and as such forcibly took away Pankaj Poddar. The said Pankaj Poddar appears recovered by the police and his statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C in which he supported the allegation and further stated that he was asked to pay up Rs.10,000/- else he would be killed and further that he would ask his family members to arrange for the payment. The victim stated that the police was informed and the mother of this petitioner also telephonically informed the petitioner that a case had been lodged and while the petitioner was shifting the victim to another place, the police captured the petitioner and the victim. The contention is that the report was made at about 12.10 A.M. on 1.4.2008 and the victim’s statement was recorded on 1.4.2008 and there was not - 2 - much time and it appears from the statement of the victim that the occurrence had taken place on 31st January, 2008 and as such there is an anomaly in the prosecution. The further contention is that the victim was returned after few hours of the occurrence and as such the offence could not be under Section 364 IPC. There is definitely some bonafide mistakes in recording of the statement inasmuch as FIR of the case was drawn up on 1.4.2008 at 4 A.M. This is an official record of the official act of drawing up of the FIR. Either it could be a slip of pen or slip of tongue either of the officer of the victim while recording the statement. The fact remains that the victim was taken away by the petitioner and his companions and he was threatened that if resisted he would be killed. The second threat was that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was not paid, else also he would be killed. The case has a very serious look, considering which, the petition is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )