IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.42047 OF 2009 VIJAY YADAV, SON OF SHIV MAHADEV YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NATHUPUR, P.S. FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 10.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The case is under sections 363, 364 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim man was recovered by the police after a number of days, his statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. and in his statement he has specifically stated that five persons had kidnapped him and at the bottom of statement, their names have been mentioned. Therefore, from the said statement it is clear that no other person was involved in kidnapping the victim. Petitioner is not one of them. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner is a co-villager of the victim and, therefore, it can be presumed that he was known to him from before and therefore, if he was involved, he must have been named. Petitioner is in judicial custody since 17.9.2009 and it is stated that he has no criminal - 2 - antecedent. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this application is allowed. Let petitioner (Vijay Yadav) be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri D. Ram, Judicial Magistrate, Patna City in connection with Fatuha P.S. Case No.15/2005 with conditions as laid down in sub-section (3) of section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as may be applicable and also that one of the bailors shall be a close relation of the petitioner. In case of breach of any of the conditions at any stage to the satisfaction of the concerned court below, it shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner and take steps for his arrest. B.T (J. N. Singh, J.)