IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45497 of 2009 PREM KUMAR RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 21.12.2009 Heard. The prosecution story is that a person came to the shop of the informant and negotiated the purchase of a motorcycle by fixing the cost at Rs.28,000/-. The purchaser obtained the keys of the vehicle for test riding it and he never returned with the vehicle. The information was lodged and lastly the vehicle was recovered from the possession of the present petitioner. This is how the petitioner is in custody. The contention is that for the same offence, two cases; one in Gardanibagh police station and the other in Kankarbagh police station were instituted and the recovery was also made in connection with the case registered by Kankarbagh police station. The further contention is that the petitioner is enjoying the privilege of bail in that Kankarbagh police station case and he is unnecessarily rotting in prison in present case when he was already in custody in Kankarbagh police station case which was registered for the same offence. The next - 2 - contention was that the petitioner has taken a plea that he had purchased a vehicle from one Raju Sah. This fact does not appear verified nor any document to that effect has been produced before me so as to satisfying me. As regards the first argument of remaining in custody for the same offence, it has to be noted that the written report about the motorcycle going missing with the test rider was lodged in Gardanibagh police station and this is how the petitioner is in custody. Considering the serious nature of the offence, the court is not inclined to direct the release of the above named petitioner on bail at this stage. The prayer is rejected. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )