IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3299 of 2009 SIRODHAN KUMAR @ LADEN, son of Sri Bhimal Mahto, resident of village – Sawami, P.S. Bakhtiyarpur, District – Patna Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 04.03.2009 Heard. The case is under section 364 of IPC and one Sudhanshu Kumar was the victim who was taken away. It appears that the case was registered initially under section 364 IPC but on receipt of information or messages requiring the informant and his family members to pay ransom, section 364A of the Code was added to the format of the FIR. Sudhanshu Kumar returned back or was recovered and the petitioner was also arrested on suspicion and it appears that the petitioner was put on Test Identification Parade which was organized on 22.1.2007 in which the victim Sudhanshu Kumar participated and he identified the petitioner also as abductor. The contention has been on the admissibility of the piece of evidence which a Test Identification Parade could be. The contention also has been on the role which the petitioner could have played not being stated by the victim. These appear the part of evidence led by the prosecution and to be appreciated by the trial court. No bail order is passed on the question of admissibility /relevance of any material. If the confession could be made basis for refusing the prayer for bail then that could not be the better citation to reject the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Petition is dismissed. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)