IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40169 of 2009 Karu Chaudhary @ Barhania Chaudhary, Son of late Munshi Chaudhary, Resident of Village Bhadeja, P.S. Mofassil, District Gaya. --------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ------ Opp. Party ----------- 2 25.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Considering the fact that the petitioner is an accused for an offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and though not named in the First Information Report, his complicity has emerged on account of recovery of motorcycle as clearly recorded in paragraph no.90 of the Case Diary, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner even when learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to some statement in paragraph no.10 of the bail application to suggest that such recovery was made from the garage of one Md. Nazeem. As a matter of fact, such statement would not inspire confidence because not only the court below having perused the Case Diary and its paragraph no.90 has recorded the fact of recovery of motorcycle from the possession 2 of the petitioner but even the petitioner has not clearly stated about his criminal antecedent. That being so, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, namely, Karu Chaudhary @ Barhania Chaudhary and his prayer for bail is hereby rejected. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)