Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32583 of 2011 (5) dt.19-01-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.32583 of 2011 ====================================================== Md. Sayum, son of Abdul Sattar. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== With Criminal Miscellaneous No.39234 of 2011 ====================================================== Babloo Singh @ Ram Dhani Singh, son of Sri Ravindra Prasad Singh. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== 5 19-01-2012 Both the above stated petitions arise out of Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 11 of 2011 registered under [STATUTE] and later on, Sections 397 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code were also added. Accordingly, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order. The name of both the petitioners came in statement of one co-accused Manoj Mahto, who was caught just after the alleged occurrence and the said Manoj Mahto disclosed the name of the petitioners. The report of S.P., Samastipur shows that petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 32583 of 2011 carries criminal antecedent of eight cases and petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 39234 of 2011 carries criminal antecedent of two cases which is evident from perusal of para 110 of the case diary. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32583 of 2011 (5) dt.19-01-2012 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid co-accused Manoj Mahto disclosed the name of one Sanjeet Mahto as his associates but para-20 of the case diary reveals that on the alleged date of occurrence, the aforesaid Sanjeet Mahto was in jail custody in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 713 of 2010, but according to the prosecution case the alleged occurrence took place on 18.01.2011 and his family members disclosed only to this extent that he was in jail custody in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 713 of 2010 and they have not disclosed his date of custody. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, I am not inclined to release the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioners in connection with the above stated case is hereby rejected. Devendra/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 395

Statute Text:
Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Dacoity. Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.