IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42842 of 2009 Shatrughana Das @ Satrudhan Das, Son of Yogeshwar Das, Resident of Village Bajitpur Meyari, P.S. Sarairanjan, Dist. Samastipur. ------ Petitioner Versus State of Bihar ------- Opp. Party ----------- 2 17.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner, facing prosecution for an offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, has his defence for the purpose of bail that his being linked only on the basis of use of mobile bearing no. 9931394815, is wholly absurd, inasmuch as, in paragraph no.44 of the Case Diary, it has already transpired that the aforementioned number was in the name of Mahendra Das. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the whole case seems to be a fabricated one, inasmuch as, the First Information Report was delayed by ten days and the explanation given by the informant for the same was that he was trying to locate the persons who had snatched Rs. 14,000/- in the evening of 19.11.2008. From perusal of paragraph nos. 56 & 57 of the Case Diary, it however transpires that none else but the father of co-accused Manoj 2 Das on being tracked with the help of another mobile of the informant, had come out to confess that it was his son, Manoj Das, who was using the same and there he had given the details of the phone calls including one bearing number 9931394815 which was claimed to be that of the petitioner. In such statement, Baleshwar Das, father of Manoj Das, has also revealed that it was the petitioner who had not only in the custody of the said mobile but had also taken connection in the name of his Bahnoi, Mahendra Das. The said part of statement get further corroboration in paragraph no.57 of the Case Diary from the statement of the son of Mahendra Das i.e. Bhagina of the petitioner, who has again reiterated that mobile no. 9931394815 was being always used by Shatrughana Das, the petitioner. That being so, when there is a proof of one of the two looted mobiles of the informant being in custody and used by the petitioner, this Court would not find the delay in lodging F.I.R. to be fatal as was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. That 3 apart, the petitioner’s custody is less than a year in connection with an offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and his recent criminal antecedent as specifically mentioned in paragraph no.14 of this application would only go to show that the petitioner has somehow acquired notoriety in indulging himself in similar type of offence. That being so, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, namely, Shatrughana Das @ Satrudhan Das is hereby rejected for the present and he is given liberty to renew his prayer for bail after completing further nine months of his judicial custody in which period the trial court must make its endeavours to conclude the trial of the petitioner. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)