IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30030 of 2010 SURAJMAL PASWAN, SON OF MANDEO PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SUKNADERA, P.S. HUSSANABAD, DISTRICT PALAMU (JHARKHAND). Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 6.10.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, who is in custody in Nabinagar P.S. Case No.31 of 2008 for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of bail. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that only on suspicion, the petitioner has been made accused in the case. It was submitted that F.I.R. was lodged against unknown. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the present petition, has produced a photo copy of web copy of order dated 20.10.2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No.35973 of 2008 whereby one of the co-accused, namely, Bindeshwari Paswan @ Dewaji was granted bail by this Court. From the impugned order itself, it appears that the petitioner is accused in number of cases under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that even in 2 N.H./ supplementary case diary, some materials were brought on record against the petitioner. So far as Bindeshwari Paswan is concerned, he was directed to be released only on the ground that of course, on suspicion, he was made accused, but save and except the present case, he was not accused in any case. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot be equated with Bindeshwari Paswan. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegation and criminal antecedence of this petitioner, the court is not inclined to grant bail. Prayer for bail is rejected. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)