IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21512 of 2009 BINOD KUMAR YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 10.08.2009 Heard both sides. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted initially under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code but subsequently, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 395 IPC. The informant was looted of the amount belonging to the Postal Department on gun point by miscreants. This occurrence had taken place on 6.7.1994. It appears that steps for his arrest were taken sometimes in the year 2006-07 but the petitioner continued to evade. Counsel fairly submits that in the year 2007, processes under Section 82 and 83 were issued. The petitioner is in custody since 18.3.2009. Impugned order indicates that the charges have already been fixed and the trial is scheduled. Impugned order further reflects the material available on record on the strength of which the petitioner is facing trial. Learned counsel submits that some of the co- accuseds of the present case have been granted bail by different courts in the year 1994/1996. Said statement is in paragraph 14 of the bail application. Looking to the materials on record and keeping in view the fact that the trial is already under-way, this court is not inclined to admit him to bail. His prayer for bail stands rejected. 2 However, if all the prosecution witnesses are not examined within 10 months from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order, the petitioner shall have liberty to renew his prayer for bail. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )