IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12452 of 2009 BINDU YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 13.07.2009 Heard both sides. Petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted under Sections 386,389/34 of the Penal Code. As per allegation contained in the F.I.R., when the informant was returning home from the cattle hat after selling his livestock petitioner and others intercepted and relieved of all his belongings including cash at gun point. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the statement made in paragraph no.11, which reads thus: “That the petitioner has been granted bail in all cases and he is not at all wanted in any case.” It is contended that he is in custody since 05.02.2009. It is further highlighted that there is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. The impugned order, however, reflects that the prosecution witnesses have supported the allegations. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, on the contrary, draws attention of the court to the facts incorporated in paragraph no.34 of the case diary wherein the criminal antecedent of the petitioner has been noted/recorded. It appears he is accused of offence(s) of serious nature. Having regard to all the facts, this court is not inclined to admit him to 2 bail. His prayer for bail is accordingly rejected. However, this court grants liberty to the petitioner to renew prayer for bail, if the trial itself is not taken up within nine months from the date of receipt/communication of this order in the court below. Sym/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)