IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28812 of 2009 MUKESH KUMAR, son of Shambhu Pathak, resident of village Papraur, Durga Asthan, P.S. Barauni, District Begusarai Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 16.10.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The nature of offence alleged against the petitioner may not be major but its consequence faced by the sufferers becomes disastrous at the nick of the moment. It is said in the F.I.R. that the petitioner had picked up an attaché of a traveling person in the train and there is also recovery of such attaché from the conscious possession of the petitioner completing the offence under section 379/414 I.P.C. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking parity with one Md. Gufran, having similar allegation including recovery of one attaché from his conscious possession and his being directed to be released on bail Yesterday by this Court in Cr.Misc.No. 29824/2009, would have been a valid consideration had he also the same criminal antecedent as that of the 2 petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner however concedes that while Md. Gufran had only one pending against him, the petitioner has at least three more pending cases against him. It is all these aspects which would make the case of the petitioner distinguishable to the aforementioned Md. Gufran. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, who has remained in custody for less than six months, is rejected for the present with a liberty that he may renew his prayer for bail after completing one year of his judicial custody. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/