IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.21915 of 2010 MITHLESH YADAV @ MITHILESH YADAV, S/o Sukhan Singh. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03. 23.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, informant and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offences under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 17 of C.L.A. Act. It appears that the petitioner has not been named in the First Information Report but subsequently it transpired that the entire occurrence has been done by the petitioner whereafter the petitioner and other co-accused persons were arrested and they confessed their guilt. The victim identified the petitioner in the Test Identification Parade as one of the kidnappers. In view of such, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The prayer for bail is rejected. While pressing the bail application the bail order of Vijay Prajapati was annexed as Annexure-2 from which it appears that wrong submission had been made before this Court on the basis of which he has been granted bail. Now, the counsel for the State has appeared and states that in fact in paragraph 138 it has transpired that Vijay Prajapati had threatened the informant to not depose in the Test Identification Parade as also the victim in his 2 statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that at the Police Station he had identified Vijay Prajapati along with two others. His role had also been disclosed in the confessional statement of the co-accused persons. Issue notice to Vijay Prajapati and his bailors as to why his bail shall not be cancelled through the Court in seisin of the case in connection with Sasaram (M) P.S. Case No. 418 of 2009. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)