IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42053 of 2010 AMAR YADAV @ AMAR KUMAR YADAV, SON OF SRI DEVENDRA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TANDASPUR, P.S. BATHNAHA, DISTRICT SITAMARHI-------------------------------------------------PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR--------------------------------------------------------OPP.PARTY ----------- 2. 22.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner prays for bail in connection with a case under Sections 386 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is associated with one Manoj Rai who was earlier employed as Driver of the vehicle of the wife of the informant. Ransom of Rs.3 lacs was demanded by the said Manoj Rai, out of which Rs.1.5 lacs was paid by the informant but not being satisfied with the same the accused persons asked to pay another Rs.1.5 lacs. The police was informed and a raid was conducted in Umang Hotel on 3.5.2010 at 8.30 P.M. and the amount of Rs.1.5 lacs wrapped in a polythene as also the mobile phone through which ransom was demanded were recovered. A girl was also recovered during the raid on whose statement a separate criminal case has been registered. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and he was not found in the hotel when raid was conducted by the police but subsequently he was arrested from his village home. It is further submitted that the ransom money has also not been recovered from his possession rather the same has been recovered from Manoj Rai who has been arrested from the hotel. It is also submitted that the petitioner is an accused in only one other case under Sections 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Further it is urged that the petitioner is languishing in jail since 4.5.2010 after his arrest from his village. Learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, submits that it has come during the course of investigation that the informant has identified the petitioner as the accused person who had received the polythene bag containing Rs.1.5 lacs in cash from the informant. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, this Court does not consider it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner and his prayer for bail is, accordingly, rejected. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/