IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11545 of 2010 BISHUNI SAHNI S/O JAGDISH SAHNI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 1.7.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted that the petitioner is not named in the first information report, but subsequently it appears that the petitioner’s name was disclosed in the confessional statement of the co-accused. Thereafter when he was put on test identification parade, he was identified by four witnesses, one of whom was not examined during investigation. However, considering the nature of allegations against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The prayer for bail is rejected. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. It is made clear that the petitioner’s case shall not be bifurcated for purposes of consideration of bail of the petitioner. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )