IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14523 of 2009 KAMAL KISHORE, Son of Shri Nathuni Prasad Yadav, resident of Village- Kapasma, P. S. Mofassil, District- Begusarai. .....................Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR........................................Opposite Party. -With- Cr.Misc. No.15328 of 2009 PRAMOD KUMAR, Son of Sri Suresh Rai, resident of Village- Bhagwanpur, P.S. Muffasil, District-Begusarai...............Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR............................................Opposite Party. -With-. Cr.Misc. No.15366 of 2009 KUMAR RANJEET, Son of Late Ram Balak Sah, resident of Village- Thakuri Chak, P.S.Barauni(Garhpura), District-Begusarai. ...............Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR...............................................Opposite Party. ----------- 4. 14.9.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel appearing for the State. The petitioners are accused in a case under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioners are the Guard and employees of C.M.S. Security Limited which is an Agency of I.C.I.C.I. Bank. The allegation is that during the night, some unknown criminals came and opened the door of A.T.M. and took away the money. During investigation, it was found that A.T.M. Machine was not broken. The code number of A.T.M. Machine was known to Pramod Kumar, Kumar Ranjeet (Petitioners) and one Sanjeeva Nand Rai. Investigation thus indicates that in fact the money was withdrawn by the persons who knew the code number of A.T.M. and it has been falsely shown to be an act of theft of dacoity by the petitioner Kamal Kishore, who is the guard of A.T.M. in question. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Sanjeeva Nand Rai has been granted bail by this Court. The case of Sanjeeva Nand Rai is on different footing to these petitioners, so the petitioners are not entitled to same benefits. As far as the petitioner, Kamal Kishore who is the guard of the A.T. M. is concerned, it has been submitted that the case was recorded at his instance. However, the fact that he reported that the dacoity was committed is apparently false which appears from the records and the investigation that has come thereafter. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. The bail application of the petitioners is rejected. U.K. (Sheema Ali Khan,J)