IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18927 of 2011 Sanjeet Kumar, Son of Parmanand Singh, r/o Village Mafi, P.S. Warsaliganj, Dist. Nawada. ……..Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar …….Opp. Party ----------- 3/ 22.07.2011 Heard. In a criminal prosecution registered under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code regarding a Bank dacoity, the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. as an accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not been put on T.I. Parade and no incriminating articles has been recovered either from the house or from the possession of the petitioner. There is no material on record except the confessional statement of co accused persons to connect the petitioner with the alleged occurrence. It is also submitted that co-accused Mukesh Kumar with almost similar and identical allegation has been granted bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.06.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No.19155 of 2011. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has strongly opposed the prayer for bail made on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that it is a case of Bank 2 dacoity and more than six lacs rupees in cash were looted by the miscreants from the Bank. During the course of investigation, witnesses have disclosed the name of the petitioner as the person, who actively participated in the said Bank dacoity and, therefore, according to him, the petitioner does not deserve bail. It has further been submitted that some looted currency notes were seized from the possession of the co-accused persons on the basis of confessional statement recorded by the Police. On perusal of the order dated 29.06.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No.19155 of 2011, it appears that this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge that the case in question relates to a Bank dacoity. There is no whisper at all in the order dated 29.06.2011 that the prosecution case relates to the Bank dacoity. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, the prayer for bail made on behalf of the petitioner in connection with Warsaliganj P.S. Case No.161 of 2010 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada is rejected for the present. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada is directed to commit the case to the court of Sessions without 3 delay. After commitment of the case to the Sessions court, the trial of the petitioner should be taken up on priority basis. However, after framing of the charge, if the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within a period of one year, without there being any fault on the part of the petitioner, then he shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. Anjani/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J )