IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27276 of 2010 Satyendra Sinha @ Satendra Sinha @ Chhotu S/O Sri Tribhuan Sinha, R/V Rastriyaganj, Phulwarisharif, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District-Patna ------------------- Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 04 04-02-2011 Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shyameshwar Dayal, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor. The petitioner, who is in custody in Ara( Town) P.S. Case No.14 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 395, 120B and 412 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of bail. It was a case relating to commission of dacoity in the Bank, from where more than Rs.26 lacs was looted .During the investigation, petitioner’s name transpired on confession made by one of the co-accused and thereafter raid was conducted in the in-laws house of the petitioner, from where more than Rs.2 Lacs, alleged to be looted money, was recovered. At the same time, the petitioner’s wife was also arrested, who subsequently was granted bail vide Annexure- 6 to the petition i.e. order dated 29.6.2010 passed in Cr.Misc.No.21921 of 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the bail petition, submits that the petitioner was put on T.I. Parade and at least three witnesses had not identified the petitioner. It was further submitted that other similarly situated co-accused, whose name had come on confession of the co-accused, have already been granted bail vide Annexures 7 and 8 to the petition by the court below itself. It was 2 further submitted that mother-in-law of the petitioner has filed a Miscellaneous Case vide Misc.Case No.155 of 2010 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna for calling an explanation from Patliputra Police Station as to under what circumstances her daughter was detained by the police. On the aforesaid grounds, it has been prayed to grant bail to the petitioner. Sri S.Dayal, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It was submitted that besides confession of co-accused, the petitioner disclosed his involvement and the money, which was recovered from the house of his mother-in-law, was also identified by the witness, i.e. the Bank Officer. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the impugned order as well as case diary. So far as grant of bail to co-accused by the court below vide Annexures-7 and 8 to the petition is concerned, the accusation was not similar to the petitioner. In respect of one of the co-accused, it was disclosed by co- accused that he had harboured the accused persons and in respect of other accused persons , it was alleged that co-accused had given mobile to him. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as seriousness of the accusation, the Court is not inclined to grant privilege of bail. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)