IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.2294 of 2011 SANTOSH YADAV son of Subh Nath Yadav Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 06.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was refused bail by order dated 09.03.2010 vide Cr. Misc. No. 1985 of 2010 on the ground that he was the main assailant of one of the deceased. It has been submitted that co-accused Badri Yadav, against whom there was similar allegation, has been granted bail by this court vide Cr. Misc. No. 41804 of 2010 as also in the case of co- accused, who had moved against the order of non-discharge vide Cr. Misc. No. 42418 of 2000, this court has called for the case diary on the submission that the informant has stated that he had wrongly mentioned the name of the said petitioner in the First Information Report. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant submits that the informant had moved Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order granting bail to co-accused Badri Yadav and other accused and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to issue notice to the accused persons. Further submission is that he being the informant can testify that, in fact, the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation that he had not named the accused Arun Kumar Rai is completely false. It has further been submitted that the trial is in progress and one witness has also been examined during trial. 2 Considering the same, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Prayer for bail is once again rejected. JA/- (Anjana Prakash,J.)