1. ' Briefly stated the case of the prosecution per F.I.R. Is that on the day of occurrence viz. 15-7-2001 at 20-00 hours, six accused including the applicant appeared in two cars and kidnapped Abdul Khaliq, the complainant as well as his father Daim Deen due to marriage dispute. Thereafter, Abdul Khaliq was released whereas Daim Deen was held hostage and an amount of Rs,3,00,000 was demanded for his freedom.
2. ' In support of the bail application learned counsel has submitted that admittedly the complaint was filed on 4-5-2002 regarding the incident which is alleged to have been taken place on 15-7- 2001 viz. After about a delay of nine months, which has not been satisfactorily explained to date by the prosecution. He has next submitted that in his police statement under section 161, Cr.P.C., the complainant has totally changed his story as he has now alleged that the fact of his father's kidnapping was made known to him 'through some one else. In the circumstances, per learned counsel, this becomes a case of further enquiry particularly as the prohibitory clause is not attracted since the accused have been challaned under section 365, P.P.C.
3. ' Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Fazlur Rehman, does not oppose the request for grant of bail application.
4. ' I have heard both the learned counsel. In my opinion this is a case of further enquiry as admittedly the complainant has been lodged after a delay of nine months which has not so far been explained. Secondly, the complainant himself has changed his story in his police statement.
5. Consequently, 1 would grant bail to the applicant provided he submits surety in the amount of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Bail application is disposed of.