IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16949 of 2010 DHANANJAY YADAV @ BHURA YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 13.05.2010 Petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted under diverse sections of Indian Penal Code including Sections 395 read with Section 376G of Indian Penal Code. Per prosecution case, a dacoity was committed in the night of 15th -16th May 2007 in the house of the informant. Five (05) unknown culprits entered into the room through ladder and committed dacoity. It is further the allegation that they also committed gang rape on the two lady inmates of the house. It appears from the impugned order that the petitioner was subsequently apprehended on the strength of a confessional statement of other accused person and was put on test identification where at he was identified by three witnesses. Petitioner seems to be in custody since 21.1.2008. This court also finds from the impugned order that the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions. Having regard to the allegation and the materials available on record as reflected from the impugned order, I am not persuaded to release the petitioner on bail. Prayer for bail is rejected. Considering the fact that he is in custody since 21.1.2008 and some of the co-accused have been privileged with bail, it is observed that if all the prosecution witnesses are not 2 examined within 07 months from the date of receipt/communication of the order in the court below, the petitioner may have liberty to renew prayer for bail. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )