IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31719 of 2010 SURENDRA YADAV @ SURENDRA SINGH SON OF SRI RAM BILASH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE VARUNA, P.S. FATWAH, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 17.9.2010. Perused the office note. Office note indicates that in compliance with earlier order, complaint has already been filed. This is the second attempt for grant of bail on behalf of the petitioner. Earlier prayer for bail of this petitioner was rejected by order dated 25.2.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No.41099 of 2009. The prayer for bail was rejected on two grounds, firstly, it was a case relating to road hold up and secondly, on the ground of chequerred criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the present petition, has heavily relied on two orders passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No.45098 of 2009 (Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Rai) and order dated 2.8.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No.24673 of 2010. It was submitted that subsequent to rejection of bail of this 2 petitioner, other two accused persons were granted bail by this Court. Accordingly, it has been submitted that it is a case of change of circumstances and as such petitioner may also be granted privilege of bail. I have perused both orders i.e. order dated 9.4.2010 and 2.8.2010. By order dated 9.4.2010 in Cr. Misc. No.45098 of 2009, accused Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Rai was granted bail mainly on the ground that petitioner Raj Kumar was having clean antecedents. This Court had also called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, which supported the stand of Raj Kumar. Accordingly, Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Rai was granted bail. On the basis of bail granted to Raj Kumar, prayer for bail of accused Ramanand Yadav was allowed by this Court by its order dated 2.8.2010 in Cr. Misc. No.24673 of 2010. Accordingly, court is of the opinion that other co-accused were not having their case on similar footing like the petitioner. I do not find any new 3 N.H./ ground to entertain the present petition. Prayer for bail is rejected. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in custody, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously and conclude the same without any delay. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)