IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31825 of 2009 RAMAN KUMAR @ AMAN KUMAR @ CHINTU KUMAR @ CHINTU Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 22/01/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 363, 365 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, Section 364A of the I.P.C. was added. The petitioner is not named in the First Information Report and, subsequently, he was implicated on the basis of the material that the Mobile from which ransom was called belonged to the Grandfather of the petitioner and the Grandfather stated that it was the petitioner who used the said Mobile. It also transpired that five lacs of ransom amount has been paid for release of the victim, part of which was recovered from one, Sanjeev Kumar to whom the petitioner had allegedly given. In view of the materials having transpired against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The prayer for bail is rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial. S.Ali (Anjana Prakash, J.)