IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.4439 of 2011 Md. Imteyaz Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- with Criminal Miscellaneous No.9724 of 2011 Dharmendra Sahni Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- with Criminal Miscellaneous No.28149 of 2010 Sanjay Sahni Versus The State Of Bihar ------------ 3. 10.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The prayer for bail of Md. Imteyaz had been rejected twice. He has been identified in the T.I. Parade as also in the Court room during trial. The prayer for bail of Dharmendra Sahni has been rejected once. He has not been identified in the T.I. Parade but in the Court room. The bail application of Sanjay Sahni has been rejected twice. He has been identified in the T.I. Parade as also in the Court. The allegations are under Section 395, 397 IPC originally registered against unknown. The looted articles have been recovered from the possession of Md. Sabbir @ Bhola and Ram Pravesh Sahni. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that Md. Sabbir @ Bhola and Ram Pravesh Sahni have been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 10265 of 2010 and Cr. Misc. No. 39841 of 2009. He next submits that there is no distinction between the case of Imteyaz and Sanjay Sahni with that of Md. Sabbir @ Bhola and co-accused Ramanand, all of whom have been identified in the T.I. Parade as also 2 in the Court room. They have been granted bail after the T.I. Parade but before they came to be identified in the Court room during the trial. Ramanand has been granted bail in Cr. Misc. No. 36083 of 2009. The case of Dharmendra Sahni stands on lesser footing as he has not been identified in the T.I. Parade but only in the Court room. Counsel for the State has been unable to satisfy the Court that the petitioners having been identified both during T.I. Parade and in the Court room while in custody shall be sufficient ground to deny them privilege of bail, when co-accused who were also identified likewise during T.I. Parade and in the Court room also but in between they have been enlarged on bail. Let the petitioners above named be enlarged on bail on their furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand only) by each one of them with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 2 Muzaffarpur in connection with Pear P.S. Case No. 70 of 2008 (Sessions Trial No. 592 of 2009). Both the bailors of the petitioners must be either their father/brother/mother/wife whose photograph and proof of residence shall be appended to the bail bonds which shall be verified through the local police before acceptance. Notwithstanding the present order nothing precludes the trial court from dealing with them appropriately if their absence hinders the trial. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)