IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39751 of 2009 YOGESHWAR MAHTO @ MUNSHI MAHTO , son of Rambishun Mahto, resident of village- Ankopur Nagwan, P. S. Janipur, District- Patna. … Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 3. 18.12.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner facing prosecution for offence under Section 395, 417 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code has his defence that barring confessional statement of co-accused Chandan and his own confessional statement before the police, there is no material to link the petitioner in participating in the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner in fact has pressed great reliance on an order of this court dated 29.10.2009 wherein this court has considered the prayer for bail of co-accused Chandan Kumar, Harendra Kumar, Ramdeep Yadav and Indrajeet Kumar and from the same it has been sought to be culled out that as the role of Chandan was found to be lesser magnitude and in fact led to grant of his bail, the obvious inference would be that the name of the petitioner having been given 2 by Chandan is still less. The submission of counsel for the petitioner overlooks the gravity of offence and the manner in which it was committed. Initially, preparation and plan of the occurrence was made inside the jail where the petitioner was also undergoing custody in connection with another case and therefore he had the occasion to meet the other co-accused including Ajay, Ravi, Indu Bhusan as also Chandan and out of them Ajay and the petitioner were well aware about the movement of the cashier and that is how they were the persons who had made the blue print as to how the cashier going to deposit the amount in bank regularly, could be nabbed and subjected to robbery in the broad day light. It was infact the plan of the petitioner that while two of them will proceed on motor-cycle, the others will follow and keep watch and that is how in his own confessional statement he has accepted that Chandan was directed to keep watch on a particular route whereas he along with Ajay were to move and commit the main part of job of snatching the amount from the cashier. 3 Again from perusal of the confessional statement of petitioner himself it can be found that the bag in question containing cash amount of Rs.500000/-was snatched by him while Ajay had pointed pistol on the cashier. In presence of all these materials it would be really oversimplifying to even say that the name of the petitioner had transpired in the confessional statement of Chandan and therefore the presumption would be that he had a lesser role to play in the occurrence. This court had made a query from the counsel for the petitioner as with regard to criminal antecedent in the backdrop of the fact that the in the confessional statement the petitioner is said to the accepted before the police that he had been taken in custody at least on four earlier occasions. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as he has no instruction and he could also not find anything in the case-diary, he is not aware of the criminal antecedent of the petitioner. This Court, therefore, is satisfied that the petitioner has deliberately withheld his past history including the track of record of his criminal antecedent. 4 Be that as it may, this court would not find the case of the petitioner on the similar footing as that of Chandan and in fact his own confession which stands corroborated from recovery of the looted amount and the bag of the cashier in question duly identified in the T.I. parade is sufficient to hold that the petitioner was one of the main person who had planned and executed the offence. That being so, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)