IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26587 of 2008 RAJESHWAR PRASAD YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 24.9.2008 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is an accused for the offences punishable under sections 379 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that the vehicle of the informant was kept in the house of this petitioner on rent. It is further alleged that the informant learnt from his driver that on 25.2.2006 when he went to take the auto from the garage, he did not find it. On being inquired from the son of the petitioner, he expressed that he did not know but later on he said that the key of the said auto was taken by his father from him and he took away the vehicle but where it had been taken away, he did not know. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no occasion for the son of the petitioner to hand over the key to the petitioner as the key was not with him. The learned APP appearing for the State submits that in view of the specific 2 allegation of taking away the said auto by the petitioner, the prayer for bail made on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be rejected. Considering the submissions and the allegation made in the F.I.R., I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)