IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9248 of 2010 SHANNI KUMAR SINGH @ RIPUNJAY SINGH son of Anirudh Singh, residentof village-Besdiha, P.S.-Dev, Dist.-Aurangabad, at present R/M New Area Aurangabad, P.S. and Dist.-Aurangabad. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 17.3.2010. Heard Mr. Ravi Shanker Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Uma Shanker Prasad Singh, learned APP for the State. The petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Durgawati P.S. Case No.139 of 2009 registered for the offences under sections 395, 397 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the bail petition submits that in this case only on the basis of confessional statement made by one of the co-accused the petitioner has been made accused. Nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is in jail since 8.11.2009. He was not put on test identification parade. In the present case except confessional statement of co-accused which was made before the police nothing has been collected by the police. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail. He submits that it is true that name of the petitioner has surfaced on the basis of confessional statement co-accused Munna Singh which was made before the police but telephone prints were examined by the police during investigation which indicates that 2 co-accused Munna Singh was in touch with the petitioner and other co-accused persons which indicates that he was involved in the present case. I have also examined the materials available on the record. Now-a-days in our State there is growth in the crime relating to loot of trucks on the highway. In this case the materials which have been indicated by learned counsel for the State is sufficient for keeping the petitioner behind the bar. I am not inclined to grant bail to this petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)