IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7306 of 2009 MD.QUAZIM, S/o late Rafool Versus The STATE OF BIHAR ------ 2/ 03.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that motorcycle was seized from the outside of his house and that cannot be contacted with the petitioner’s possession, but two of the co-accused named this petitioner having probability of recovery of the motorcycle as that was in his possession and the pleading of none, appearing to claim the motorcycle, is not relevant at all. Once possession of a motorcycle is supposed with the petitioner, it is for him to show the papers for having the motorcycle in his possession. Thus, I find it is not a fit case for bail. However, in case, the trial is not concluded within a period of six months, the petitioner will have an option to renew his prayer for bail. With the above observation, the application is rejected. shail (Mandhata Singh, J.)