IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39328 of 2008 DULARCHAND @ PHULCHAND SAO Versus STATE OF BIHAR - - - - 2. 12.9.2008 Heard. The earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 14.3.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 6484 of 2007. The case is under Sections 364 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code and the allegation is that the petitioner abducted the son of the informant. The date on which the above order was passed, the son of the informant was traceless or, rather, was made traceless by the present petitioner so as to assuming that either he had been killed or he had to be presumed to be killed. Now the situation has changed. The victim appeared or was picked up by the police and was produced before a Magistrate for his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the statement, what I feel is that the victim has made an attempt to create a shield for the witnesses who supported his abduction or kidnapping or 2 commission of the offence by stating that it was really this petitioner who had confined the victim in a house who was relieved of the money which he had with him and thereafter he was released and the victim went to Punjab for earning. The statement when contrasted to the allegation could itself give out as to what could the real facts be. Regard being had to the facts, especially, the statement of the victim,, let the above named petitioner be directed to be released from custody on his furnishing a bond of Rs. 3,000/-( three thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Fast Track Court No. II, Patna, in Sessions trial No. 1266 of 2007, arising out of Danapur P.S.Case No. 506 of 2006. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)