IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39557 of 2009 AKHTAR @ AKHTAR ANSARI, son of Sikandar @ Sikandar Ansari, resident of village Barhua Saidupur, P.S. Chakia, District Chandauli (U.P.) Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 17.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner faces prosecution for offence u/ss 364A/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the allegation against him in the F.I.R. is that he was last seen with the victim Rakesh Kumar Keshri before he became traceless leading the petitioner to be suspected for kidnapping as also demand of ransom. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that Rakesh Kumar Keshri is said to have appeared himself on the very next day when the petitioner was arrested with regard to the allegation made in the F.I.R. and his first statement before the court u/s 164 Cr.P.C. on 8.6.2009 was to the extent that there was no hand of the petitioner in his kidnapping. However, on the next day his another statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he has named the petitioner to have played significant role in his 2 kidnapping as also demand of ransom. Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, would submit that the second statement running into four pages and giving a vivid description of the occurrence would not inspire confidence when he had already appeared before the Magistrate on an earlier date and had given a clear statement that the petitioner had no role to play. He would submit that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and is being implicated in this case on mere suspicion. Be that as it may, as the victim boy has already been recovered and had made no statement implicating the petitioner in his first 164 statement, this Court for the purposes of bail would find it a valid ground for his being released on bail, especially when it is claimed that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. That being so, the abovenamed petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial 3 Magistrate, Kaimur (Bhabua) in Bhabua P.S.Case No. 226/2009, subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be the father or wife of the petitioner and that the petitioner shall remain present in course of trial and his absence on two consecutive dates without a valid ground would make him liable for cancellation of his bail. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/