R.R. Prasad, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
(2.) THE Petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Sections 364A/34/120B of Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that this Petitioner and other accused persons have been alleged to have conspired to kidnap the "person for ransom and in prosecution of that conspiracy, some of the accused persons kidnapped one Abhimanyu Bhatiya @ Lav Bhatiya and kept him at a place in their captivity, where the police on getting tip off came to rescue the victim but there ensued shoot out in between the police party and the miscreants as a result of which, three miscreants got killed. At the same time, when the police came to know that some other accused persons are going away in a vehicle in order to cross the border of the State, they were arrested at Barhi, but this Petitioner was neither at place of the confinement of the victim nor he is the person who was arrested at Barhi, still he was booked in this case, as he is said to have been named by the victim. The victim subsequently identified this Petitioner in the test identification parade but it is quite strange to note that the victim has had absolutely no occasion to see the Petitioner at any point of time and, therefore, such identification and even the statement of the victim naming this Petitioner as one of the kidnappers became meaningless and under these situations, this Petitioner deserves to be admitted to bail particularly when all the other accused persons have been admitted to bail by this Court.
(3.) AS against this, learned Counsel for the State submits that it is true that the other accused persons have been admitted to bail but the case of this Petitioner stands on entirely different footing.;