IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1804 of 2008 AMARNATH RAI @ AMARNATH ROY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03 07.05.2008 Heard both sides. The petitioner is an accused in a case initially instituted under sections 392 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, section 411 of the Indian Penal Code was added. From the impugned order it appears that the petitioner was arrested and made confessional statement and on the basis of said statement the stolen motorcycle was recovered. It further appears that the petitioner is involved in such kind of activities as admittedly he was arrested in connection with another case of identical nature and thereafter remanded in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no seizure list was prepared after recovery of the motorcycle allegedly made by the police. I find no such statement has been made in the bail petition and no such plea was taken in the Court below. Having regard to the facts appearing from the record, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The application for bail stands rejected. Sym/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)