IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41416 of 2008 NAGINA YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 11.12.2008 Heard Sri Satyaveer, Advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The case is under Section 392 IPC and the petitioner is named in the FIR. The allegation is that three criminals came on to the road when the informant was driving his motorcycle and at the point of pistol he relieved him of the vehicle. The petitioner has been named on account of being identified along with one of his Bahnoie whose name has not been described in the FIR. Subsequently, the informant has clarified the name of the Bahnoie of the petitioner as Upendra Yadav and has also named the man who had put the pistol at him. The contention is that the petitioner was known to the informant from before as he was resident of a neighboring village of the informant and it appears that the petitioner has been implicated falsely in this case. The case diary has been received and considering the material in the case and specific allegation and implication through overt-acts, I am not inclined to direct the release of the above named petitioner on bail. Petition is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )