IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.31258 of 2011 1. Nand Kishore Singh @ Kisho Singh son of Late Ram Naumi Singh 2. Mritunjay @ Karoo son of Nand Kishore Singh @ Kesho Singh Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- 4. 20.12.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, the State and the informant. The petitioners seek bail in Brahampura P.S. case No.65 of 2011 (Sessions Trial No.384 of 2011) instituted for the offence u/ss.364 and 365/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly on 12.12.2010 the present informant Dharmendra Chaudhary had instituted a case against the Bank officials about duping a number of persons in the pretext of granting loan to them. On 16.4.2011 the informant instituted the present case stating therein that when he had deposed against the Officer Incharge, Mushahari P.S. before the I.G. of the Zone and while he was coming out of the gate, petitioner no.1 and co-accused caught him and took him to the Court where co-accused Dilip Kumar Singh made him sign on some papers and petitioner no.1 took him to the Officer Incharge Baleshwar Prasad. There the Officer Incharge Baleshwar Prasad tempted him with certain material benefits and the petitioner no.1 took him to village Kuari and confined him there. Petitioner no.2, who was the son of petitioner no.1, was always present with the informant while he was in confinement. Suddenly on 18.4.2011 the police force reached there and freed him. He alleged that he had been confined - 2 - because he had given an adverse statement against Baleshwar Prasad, the Officer Incharge before the I.G. It has been submitted that the present informant is a complete liar which is evident from Annexure 2 because the First Information Report instituted by the Officer Incharge of P.S. Mahua on 16.4.2011 reveals that in fact informant Dharmendra Choudhary was an accused in the earlier case mentioned by him and he had confined himself to escape from the liability of the case allegedly instituted by him and was recovered in the process. This information was contrary to the claims made by Dharmendra Choudhary in Annexure 1. However, I find that Annexure 2 is completely unbelievable since Dharmendra Choudhary was not the accused in the case but was the informant of the case which is evident from Annexure4. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. The prayer for bail is rejected. The petitioners may renew for bail after framing of charge if their case is not bifurcated for the same. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )