IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.10416 of 2009 BINAY KUMAR SINGH @ VINAY KUMAR SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 16.06.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is an accused in a case under Sections 364, 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant’s version could not be reliable as she saw her son being abducted by the petitioner and his father, still she did not report the matter. He further submits that apart from the version of the informant, the only material would be the fardbeyan of Ajay Gupta, who is alleged to be accompanying the deceased, the son of the informant, who is missing. He submits that the fardbeyan given by Ajay Kumar Gupta as well as his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not in conformity with each other. In his fardbeyan, the said Ajay Kumar Gupta has specifically stated that Satrudhan Singh, father of the petitioner hurled Fasuli blow at the informant’s son. However, in his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he has not specifically stated whether both gave Fasuli blow or not. He submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for bail. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail is rejected. However, he may renew his prayer for bail after three months. Uday/ (S. P. Singh, J.)