IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41084 of 2009 1. SANDEEP SINGH son of Bharat Singh 2. Arun Singh son of Lal Babu Singh Both of village Jamalki, P. S. Parsa, District Saran, Chapra. …. Petitioners. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 3. 14.12.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. The two petitioners who are facing prosecution for offence under Sections 392 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code have their defence for the purpose of bail that while no recovery was made from the conscious possession of the petitioner no. 1, motor- cycle allegedly recovered from the possession of petitioner no. 2 was actually lying in the courtyard of the house. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the implication of these two petitioners is based on confession of co- accused Bharat singh, father of petitioner no. 1 Sandeep Singh who had already been released on bail by this court in Cr. Misc. No. 32722 of 2008 (disposed of on 6.1.2009), the petitioners would be entitled for grant of bail. 2 In the opinion of this court, so far petitioner no. 2 is concerned, he would not be entitled for bail on a simple ground that there is recovery from his conscious possession and he has no explanation for being in possession of such motor-cycle. That being so, the prayer for bail of the petitioner no. 2 is hereby rejected. So far petitioner no. 1 is concerned, about him it has come in the case diary as is referred to in the earlier order dated 6.1.2009 while disposing of the bail application of his father that the mobile phone which was subject matter of theft had four calls from his son and therefore the son could have played role in the alleged offence. As a matter of fact, from the aforesaid order of this court it is clear that father for the purposes of getting bail has shifted his onus on the son and in fact his confessional statement also is to the same effect. It therefore cannot be said that there are no possibility of role allegedly assigned to the petitioner no. 1 to have played by him. Counsel would submit that the petitioner no. 1 is juvenile. Unfortunately, 3 this aspect was never raised before the court below and therefore while rejecting the prayer for bail of petitioner no. 1, this court would give fresh liberty only to petitioner no. 1 to renew his prayer for bail taking a plea of being juvenile before the court below. With the aforementioned observations, this application is rejected. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)