IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44783 of 2009 JHABO RAI, S/O LATE RUDO RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PAKRA, P.S. NAUGACHHIA, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. Versus STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.44899 of 2009 HIMANSHU KUMAR BHAGAT SON OF HEMANT BHAGAT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAUGACHIA BAYAHUT CHOWK, P.S. NAUGACHIA, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. Versus STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.45287 of 2009 AMIT KUMAR @ AMIT KUMAR MANDAL SON OF NITYA NAND MANDAL, RESIDENT OF HARNATH CHAK, P.S. NAUGACHIA, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. Versus STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.30 of 2010 MD.MINTU @ MD.MANTU @ MD.MINTU KUMAR, SON OF MD. ABBAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAUGACHIA, P.S. NAUGACHIA, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 22.2.2010. Heard Mr. B.J. Ojha and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. All the petitioners, who are in custody in connection with Korha (Kodha) P.S.Case No.122 of 2009 for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, have prayed for grant of bail. The case relates to loot of a truck loaded with ginger. The F.I.R. was lodged - 2 - against unknown. Subsequently, during investigation, one of the accused was arrested and it appears on the basis of confessional statement of accused which was made before the police, several accused persons were arrested. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that despite the fact that accused persons, the petitioners were arrested during investigation, they were never put on Test Identification Parade and none identified him. In the similar circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring order dated 4.11.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. No.36154 of 2009 with Cr. Misc. No.36853 of 2009, has submitted that other accused persons having almost similar allegation have already been granted bail. Learned counsel further submitted that so far as bail of accused Sonu @ Ranjit Singh is concerned, his bail has been rejected by this Court. The case of petitioner stands on different footing from the case of those whose bail has been rejected. In view of the fact, let the - 3 - N.H./ petitioners above named be enlarged on bail on their furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Katihar in Korha P.S. Case No.122 of 2009 with a direction that the petitioners shall appear before the court below on each and every date, failing which their bail bond shall automatically be cancelled. However, if in the event any exigency, the petitioners may get prior permission from the court for none appearance on a particular date. With above direction, the bail petition is allowed. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)