IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23126 of 2008 KUNAL KUMAR @ KUNAL KUMAR SINGH @ KUNAL SINGH Versus The STATE OF BIHAR ------ 5/ 03.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is a friend of kidnapper. Doubt has been cast at petitioner’s hand through his lawyer submits that the matter was informed earlier and later on, F.I.R. was lodged with certain contradictions. In the informatory petition, it is mentioned that the victim went to the petitioner’s house, while in the F.I.R., it is said that petitioner came to the informant’s house and thereafter, the victim followed him. But how it can be contradictory, I fail to understand, when informatory petition mentions even after remaining of the victim at the petitioner’s house in the night, at several occasions for their remaining together. Though, threatening on telephone or mobile cannot be connected with petitioner’s having hand in incident, but that is there. At the relevant date, petitioner was found absent from his house also. However, on the relevant date i.e. on 26.08.2007 petitioner and victim were seen together. The victim is traceless up-till-now. Though charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner, that is pending only to find out their area and involvement of others. So, I find it not a fit case for bail. The application is rejected. shail (Mandhata Singh, J.)