IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.419 of 2010 1. RAJU NUT, SON OF SAI NUT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHENUKI BAZAR, P.S. DARIYAPUR, DISTT- SARAN. 2. KUBER NUT, SON OF SABIK NUT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JALALPUR BASTI, P.S. RUPASPUR, DISTT- PATNA. AT PRESENT DHENUKI BAZAR, P.S. DARIYAPUR, DISTT SARAN. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 23.2.2010. Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are in custody in Dariyapur P.S. Case No.124 of 2009 for the offence under Section 395 and other allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code. While pressing the bail petition, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite the fact that petitioners reside within 1000 yards from the house of the informant they were not named in the F.I.R. though one Santa Nut was made accused in the F.I.R. He submits that there is every probability that petitioners were known to the informant and their family members and as such putting them on Test Identification Parade has got no meaning. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for grant of bail. - 2 - Learned counsel for the State by referring paragraphs 64, 102, 118 and other paragraphs of the case diary submits that the petitioners were arrested on secret information and thereafter, from the possession of the petitioners, certain looted articles were also recovered. Both the petitioners were but on Test Identification Parade and 3-4 witnesses have identified them. Besides this, the articles which were recovered from possession of the petitioners, were put on Test Identification Parade, which was conducted in presence of Block Development Officer and in that identification parade even looted articles were also identified by the witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in this case, one of the accused persons namely Amar Kumar Sah has been granted bail. On perusal of the record, I am of the view that petitioners’ case does not stand on the footing of the case of Amar Kumar Sah. It appears that after committing dacoity, the accused persons had sold looted articles to Amar Kumar Sah and from - 3 - N.H./ possession of Amar Kumar Sah, those articles were recovered as per confession made by the accused persons before the police. In this case, on the basis of confession of some of the accused persons, some looted articles were recovered from accused Amar Kumar Sah and as such the petitioners cannot get benefit in view of bail order granted to accused Amar Kumar Sah. Without going into the merit of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to these petitioners. However, it is expected that steps will be taken for early commencement and conclusion of the trial keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are in jail. With above observation, the petition stands dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)