IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32929 of 2008 PANKAJ KUMAR SAH @ PAPPU SAH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 29.8.2008 Heard. The case is under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and petitioner is named in the F.I.R. The allegation is that the petitioner and his companion had relieved the informant of his Hero Honda Motor-cycle at gun point. The same F.I.R. states that the petitioner and his companion were caught during the vehicle checking and the motor-cycle was recovered. The contention is that for the same recovery, Hathua P.S. case no.22 of 2007 was registered under section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25 etc. of the Arms Act and that the petitioner is on bail and the bail was granted by me and, as such, the petitioner could not be held up in the present case. I do not find any reason to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner because of the simple reason that the gist of the F.I.R. relates to robbery of the vehicle and in that course there is a story also told of recovery of the property. The petitioner is on bail simply for the recovery of the vehicle and not for his participation in committing robbery. The petition is dismissed. sudip ( Dharnidhar Jha,J )