IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31306 of 2009 SUDHIL SINGH @ SUDHIR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 17.9.2009. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted under sections 395 and 364 of the Penal Code. Name of the petitioner transpired in course of investigation. He was found one of the miscreants that committed the dacoity. Subsequently, a demand of ransom of rupees five lakhs was made. Thereafter rupees two lakhs was paid. Learned counsel fairly submits before this court that the petitioner carries criminal antecedent. Learned A.P.P. submits that impugned order reflects several materials that incriminate the petitioner in the offence. It is pointed out that the victim on being retrieved named the petitioner as one of his abductors. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is not inclined to admit the petitioner to bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 30.4.2007, this court observes that if the trial of the case is not concluded within eight months from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. Md.S. (Kishore K. Mandal)