IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.22442 of 2008 SHIVJEE YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 24.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Initially FIR was lodged under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently 376 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code was also added. Mr. N.K. Prasad the learned Additional PP referring para 49 and 50 of the case diary points out that the petitioner confessed before the police and on the basis of confession looted articles, namely, gas stove, gas cylinder, pedestal fan and clothes were recovered from the petitioner’s house. Further referring para 107 learned APP points out that the recovered articles were put on TIP and they were identified by the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 16.08.2007. It is also submitted that co-accused Shailesh Yadav, who had also confessed before the police has been allowed bail by a Bench of this Court. 2 The learned APP replies that any recovery was not reported from the possession of Shailesh Yadav. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the confession leading to the recovery of the looted articles from the petitioner’s house, I do not feel inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for bail is refused. Kundan (C.M. Prasad, J.)