IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37059 of 2010 BHOLA RAI @ PREM CHANDRA KUMAR son of Rajendra Rai, resident of village-Bhimalpur, P.S.- Mehsi, Dist.-East Champaran, Motihari. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 7.12.2010. Heard Mr. Sarda Nand Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Mehsi P.S.Case No.51 of 2010 for the offences under sections 364 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of bail. The accusation in the first information report is that the truck of the informant loaded with some consignment were intercepted by the accused persons and, thereafter, the truck was found in abandoned condition . About 32 bundles of cloths were looted from the truck and truck driver as well as cleaner is still traceless. The petitioner’s name has transpired on the basis of confession of co-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only on the basis of confession of co-accused, the petitioner has been made accused. It was submitted that the petitioner is having clean antecedent and only due to the reason that the petitioner was not in good terms with the co-accused, namely, Sahindra Ram, the petitioner has been made accused by co-accused Sahindra Ram. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that co-accused, namely, Pintu Pathak @ Surendra Kumar has been extended 2 privilege of anticipatory bail vide Cr.Misc. No.36790 of 2010 on 8.11.2010. It was submitted that the petitioner is in jail since 20.6.2010. Mr.Shyam Bihari Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. It was submitted that on the basis of confession of co-accused, who had named the petitioner as one of the associates, a search was conducted in the house of some of the accused persons and recovery of looted bundles of cloths were also affected. It was submitted that co- accused in his confession had disclosed that while doing operation of kidnapping and loot, they were also using tranquilizer/injection. On search of the house of the petitioner, it was submitted by learned counsel for the State, at least two amples of tranquilizer/injection were recovered. This shows that the petitioner was directly involved in the present case. In view of materials brought on record and the seriousness of accusation and also the fact that investigation is still continuing for tracing other accused as well as kidnapped driver and cleaner, I am not inclined to extend privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. However, liberty is granted to renew his prayer for bail after conclusion of final investigation, if something is brought on record showing innocence of the petitioner. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)