IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.145 of 2010 RAGHU YADAV @ ROGAHA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 05. 10.05.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted under sections 396 and 397 IPC. The informant along with two others riding a motor cycle, was on way to a village. As soon as they reached near a culvert, it is alleged that accused persons including the petitioner, intercepted and looted them. It is further alleged that Chandan Yadav snatched certain amount and also fired at Amlesh Yadav. This was done at the instance of another co- accused named Rinka Yadav. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the allegation is that he also fired at the victim which did not hit him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no direct allegation of causing injury to the deceased, namely, Amlesh Yadav. Learned APP opposed the prayer for bail. Referring to paragraph 33 of the case diary, it is contended that one of the persons who was also riding the motor cycle, namely, Suresh Yadav in his statement has categorically stated that the petitioner fired which hit the head of the deceased Amlesh Yadav The petitioner seems to be in custody since - 2 - 25.06.2009. He carries criminal antecedent as noted in the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. His prayer for bail is accordingly rejected. This Court only observes that if there is undue delay in taking up the trial and concluding the same, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )