IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.46695 of 2009 SHANKAR YADAV @ SANSKAR YADAV, son of Sikandra Yadav Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 10.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under sections 392, 394, 411 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is not named in the First Information Report but subsequently one accused Rinku Yadav disclosed the name of the petitioner after which a motor cycle was recovered from his possession bearing different number. On the last occasion, submission was that the vehicle recovered from the possession of the petitioner was not the subject matter of the present loot and, therefore, case diary was called for. The learned A.P.P. has gone through the case diary from which it is revealed that, in fact, the motor cycle which was recovered from the present petitioner is the subject matter of the present loot and only the number has been changed but the informant claimed the same and the motor cycle was released in his favour. Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for bail is rejected. JA/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)