IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37825 of 2009 1. KAPILDEO RAY 2. VIJAY RAY -------------------- PETITIONERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 8.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. If there would have been only evidence against this petitioner, statement of co-accused Gyanchand Ray that could require its recording. Gyanchand Ray is one of the co-accused persons without having other connectivity in connecting evidence. No liability can be fixed upon this petitioner. As against defence version, petitioner is shown transacting seized Ganja. His house was raided and on search from a bag in possession of his daughter, Rs. 79,000/- is recovered. If that needs any explanation which is kept in his house after sale of an old Car and a cow finds no corroboration from any material and petitioner was absent when the raid was made just after confessional statement of co-accused. In the facts of the case, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. AI ( Mandhata Singh, J.)