IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25422 of 2010 DHARMENDRA NATRAJ, SON OF RUP CHAND NAT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BEDA MOAR, P.S. SHIV SAGAR, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. Versus STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.26546 of 2010 SUNIL NATRAJ @ SUNIL NUT, SON OF RAJ KUMAR NUT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BEDA RADIO STATION, SASARAM (M), POLICE STATION-SASARAM, DISTRICT-ROHTAS AT SASARAM. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 6. 11.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases as well as learned Addl. P.P. for the State. Since both the cases arise out of one First Information Report, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this order. The petitioners, who are in custody in connection with Gaya Rail P.S. Case no. 140 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 328, 379 of the Indian Penal Code., have prayed for grant of bail. First Information Report was lodged against two unknown persons on accusation that the two accused persons hired the tempo of the informant and they offered some Biscuit. After consuming the same, the informant became unconscious and subsequently he was found at a particular place in unconscious position. Thereafter, he was carried to the hospital where he disclosed regarding the alleged occurrence. During investigation, accused, Sunil Natraj, (in Cr. Misc. No. 26546 of 2010) was arrested. He made confessional 2 statement before the police. In confession he disclosed regarding the complicity of accused Dharmendra Natraj of Cr. Misc. no. 25422 of 2010. On disclosure made in his confessional statement, a search was conducted at a particular place from where the informant’s tempo and three other tempos were recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 25422 of 2010 submits that confessional statement by co-accused has got no evidentiary value for connecting the petitioner Dharmendra Natraj. Mr. Bikram Deo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner, namely Sunil Natraj, of Cr. Misc. no. 26546 of 2010 has already remained in jail for a considerable time and, as such, he may be enlarged on bail. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case particularly nature of accusation, the court is not inclined to grant privilege of bail to the petitioners. Accordingly prayer for bail of both the petitioners is rejected. Since the petitioners are in custody, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously so that the case may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay. Amit ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)