IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10469 of 2011 SANTOSH KUMAR @ DHURI, S/O NARESH YADAV, R/O VILLAGE CHANDASI, P.S. NURSARAI, DISTRICT NALANDA. ............PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . ...........OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- 02/ 12.05.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected on 08.10.2010 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 21447 of 2010 by giving following reasons:- 'Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State as also taking into account that the allegation against the petitioner of committing dacoity has also been somehow substantiated by recovery of looted articles and that the petitioner has criminal antecedent of the accused in at least three more cases, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present, even when the counsel for the petitioner would rely on an order dated 22.7.2010 granting bail to co-accused Arun Paswan in Cr.Misc. No. 12991/2010. From the said order it does not appear that the recovery from his conscious possession was gone into but then from perusal of the case diary it becomes clear that whereas recovery was made from the conscious possession of the petitioner, such recovery in the case of Arun Paswan was shown to be around his house which cannot be said to be from his conscious possession. Additionally this Court would find that this Court had not taken into consideration any such criminal antecedent as is found in the case of the petitioner. That being so, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.' 2 Counsel for the petitioner would submit that while placing the case of the petitioner on an earlier occasion, this court was not apprised that similarly situated co-accused Dharmraj Yadav @ Dharmraj Kumar had also been granted bail by this Court dated 22.07.2010 (Annexure-4) in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 18800 of 2010.He would also submit that the petitioner is in custody since, 09.10.2009 and therefore, petitioner would also be entitled for grant of bail. In the considered opinion of this Court, earlier order granting bail to co- accused Dharmraj Yadav @ Dharmraj Kumar cannot be said to be a fresh material for grant of bail to the petitioner. It has to be noted that the petitioner had tried to rely on the order granting bail to Arun Paswan and this Court had found the case of the petitioner distinguishable from Arun Paswan. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner would equate the case of the petitioner with Dharmraj Yadav @ Dharmraj Kumar, but then the order passed by this 3 Court on 22.07.2010 in the case of Dharmraj Yadav @ Dharmraj Kumar itself goes to show that there is a clear distinction between the case of the petitioner and Dharmraj Yadav @ Dharmraj Kumar, inasmuch as, Dharmraj Yadav @ Dharmraj Kumar is said to have been apprehended on the confessional statement of the petitioner. This Court while granting bail to Dharmaraj Yadav was also in fact impressed with the aspect that no recovery had been made from his conscious possession whereas now the petitioner says that from records it would be clear that there was recovery of revolver from the possession of Dharmraj Yadav @ Dharmraj Kumar, which would made the case of the petitioner same and similar as that of Dharmraj Yadav @ Dharmraj Kumar. He has further submitted that if Dharmraj Yadav @ Dharmraj Kumar has been granted bail on account of suppression of facts made by him, this Court should also allow the prayer for bail of the petitioner, inasmuch as, there should be consistency in the matter of granting bail by this Court. In the considered opinion of this 4 Court, first of all it would not be correct to say that the case of the petitioner is similar and fit to be equated with Dharmraj Yadav @ Dharmraj Kumar, inasmuch as, it was the petitioner who was apprehended with arms and on his confessional statement the looted articles were recovered. Secondly this Court had taken into consideration that the petitioner was habitual criminal, inasmuch as, he had four criminal cases pending against him including the present case. Thus the recovery of revolver from the possession of Dharmraj Yadav @ Dharmraj Kumar and its being suppressed by him before this Court can be a good ground for cancellation of bail of Dharmraj Yadav @ Dharmraj Kumar but can never be the ground for granting bail to the petitioner. Thus this Court would find it difficult to grant bail to the petitioner even on the basis of grant of bail to co- accused Dharmraj Yadav and the prayer of the bail is accordingly rejected. Counsel for the petitioner would point out that the charges were framed on 15.12.2009 but no witness has been examined 5 till date. In that view of the matter the trial Court as also the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda are hereby directed to ensure that the trial of the petitioner being Sessions Trial No. 85 of 2009 arising out of Nagar Nawada P.S. Case no. 393 of 2009 is concluded within a period of 9 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda having produced the prosecution witnesses would also submit his Action Taken Report within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. Let a copy of this order be sent both to the trial Court as well as to the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda for its strict compliance. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)