IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35660 of 2009 GAYASUDDIN SAI, son of Late Ghughuru Sai @ Halil Sai, resident of village Tarwara, P.S. Tarwara, District Siwan Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 18.12.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner facing prosecution for offence u/ss 379/328 of the Indian Penal Code has his defence that not only the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. but his implication is based on the confessional statement of a co-accused Ramu Kumar Singh, who too has been granted bail by this Court by an order dated 28.7.2009 in Cr.Misc.No. 16338/2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in absence of any direct material to show any role played by the petitioner and he, also not being put on Test Identification Parade till date, would be entitled for privilege of bail. In the opinion of this Court merely because Ramu Kumar Singh has been granted bail would not be a valid ground for grant of bail to the petitioner, inasmuch as this Court in the order dated 28.7.2009 has 2 recorded that the role of Ramu Kumar Singh was nowhere found either relating to the first part of the occurrence of taking away the vehicle or in the second part of giving/ treating the driver and Khalashi with intoxicated gutka. On the other hand, in the confessional statement of co-accused it has come that the petitioner was not only the kingpin but was the person who had given the intoxicated gutka to the driver and Khalashi. The petitioner has also criminal antecedent as has been found in the case diary, the fact which was conveniently suppressed by him in the bail application. The co-accused Ramu Kumar Singh on the other hand has no such criminal antecedent. That being so, the case of the petitioner being not comparable with co- accused Ramu Kumar Singh and there also being materials to show in the inculpatory confessional statement of Ramu Kumar Singh himself that the petitioner was the kingpin in giving shape to the occurrence the criminal antecedent of the petitioner by itself would bind him for the present and would be good enough for rejection of his 3 prayer for bail. The petitioner is in custody since 29th August, 2009 and therefore, if his trial is not taken up and concluded within a period of one year from today, he will have the liberty initially to move the trial court which then would record reasons for not concluding the trial and only thereafter the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before this Court. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/