IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39845 of 2009 TALEBAR YADAV, Son of Late Khublal Yadav, resident of Village Bhuapur, police Station Pandarak, District-Patna. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 19/11/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner faces prosecution for the offence under sections 364 /302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner is named in the First Information Report drawn on 5.3.2005 and it is said that he was one of the members of mob which had kidnapped two persons, namely, Ashok Yadav and Bambam Yadav. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though the petitioner was named in the First Information Report, the allegation against him gets water down because ultimately it has been found that the story of kidnapping of Ashok Yadav was not correct, inasmuch as, he was done to death by his rivals in a different manner. He would further submit that the alleged kidnapping of Bambam Yadav also stands exposed from the conduct of the Informant who had himself produced his kidnapped son (Bambam Yadav) within a few days of filing of the First Information Report. This Court would find that the statement of the victim Bambam Yadav was recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. wherein he had not only named the petitioner but others also as named in the First Information Report and has also clearly stated that he and 2 his uncle Ashok Yadav were kidnapped by the said members of the gang including the petitioner. The conclusion of the police, therefore, with regard to death or murder of Ashok Yadav in a different manner may or may not stand scrutiny of the Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, but then the complicity of the petitioner in the offence as alleged in the version of the victim himself is writ large on the facc of record. It has to be also noted that the petitioner had happily remained absconding for a period of four years even though he was named in the First Information Report and charge sheet had also been filed against him showing him as an absconder. That being so, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. The trial court is hereby directed to ensure that trial of the petitioner and other co-accused is taken up expeditiously and concluded within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the event, trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the aforementioned period of one year the petitioner will have liberty initially to move the trial court which would be under obligation to record reasons for not concluding the trial, whereafter only the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before this Court. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)