IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8338 of 2008 UPENDRA PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 15/05/2008 Heard. This is a case under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The theft is said to have been committed in the train. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution case does not appear to be probable. A banana seller is alleged to have taken away the attaché of the informant. The informant chased him but the culprit fled away. Later on the petitioner was again seen in the train one hour thereafter and the wife of the informant pointed out towards the petitioner that he was the person who was selling banana and fled away with the attaché. He further contended that nothing has been recovered from possession of the petitioner and it does not look proper that a person who was chased by the informant one hour before could have courage to board the same train to show his face to the informant or his wife. There is no criminal history of the petitioner. From the F.I.R. itself it is clear that the petitioner was roaming around the informant and his wife in the train for selling banana. In such circumstance, it is very natural that the wife might have noticed his face and subsequently when she again saw and identified him, she must have told to her husband who with the help of others apprehended him and handed over to the police. Considering the nature of offence, I do not feel inclined to - 2 - enlarge the petitioner on bail. His prayer for bail is thus rejected at this stage. (Rekha Kumari, J.) AMIN