IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5145 of 2008 KAMLESH SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 9/5/2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is an accused for the offence under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. Though petitioner is not named in the First Information Report, his complicity has surfaced in course of investigation where few witnesses have named him to be present at the time of occurrence suggesting his involvement. Counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing has been recovered from him and that merely because he was on a motorcycle in the Bazar cannot lead to a conclusion that he is an accused either of the first part of the occurrence leading to snatching of chain or cash or in the second part, i.e, snatching of motorcycle. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that a number of independent witnesses have named the petitioner and the petitioner has also criminal antecedent and thus this Court even after taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioner remained in custody only for seven months, should not grant bail. Appreciating the rival contentions of both the parties, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail at this stage. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected for the present. The 2 petitioner may renew prayer for bail after a period of six months. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar.