IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25115 of 2010 BIJAY PRASAD, SON OF SHIV NANDAN MAHTO Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 14.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was refused bail by an order dated 11.11.2009 vide Cr. Misc. 39184 of 2009 but the prayer for bail has been renewed on the ground that the person who had named the petitioner in his confessional statement did not do so in the course of commission of dacoity. However, on going through the case diary, it has been submitted by the learned A.P.P. that the witnesses examined in paragraphs-26 and 27 have named a number of accused persons including one Sudama Yadav and the petitioner going towards the place of occurrence. The said Sudama Yadav was named in the First Information Report as one of the miscreants by the Informant who was not a person of the locality. Since this circumstance connects the petitioner in the present case instituted under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The prayer for bail is once again rejected. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)