IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26488 of 2010 NAHID Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 11.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the state. The petitioner seeks his bail in connection with Baisi P.S. Case No. 215 of 2009 registered under sections- 395 & 397 of the of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently, section 412 of the of the Indian Penal Code was added. Although the petitioner is not named in the FIR but in course of investigation, some looted articles were recovered from his possession and he was put on TIP in which he was identified by two witnesses. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the statement of informant was recorded in course of trial and in the aforesaid statement; he could not succeed to identify the petitioner. To substantiate the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention towards Annexure-2 of supplementary affidavit and, his submission is that now it is a case of only one identification. Considering the aforesaid submissions as well as facts of the case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer is rejected. However, - 2 - learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner. AKV/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)