IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32165 of 2010 GHANSHYAM CHAUDHARY, SON OF SRI MAHENDRA CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SRIPUR KUKHASAN, P.S. KISHANPUR, DISTRICT SUPAUL. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 12.10.2010. Heard Shri Upendra Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner, who is in custody in Raghopur P.S. Case No.80 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the bail petition, has submitted that save and except material brought in the case diary at paragraph-187, nothing has been brought on record to connect the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that it is true that the petitioner was accused in altogether nine cases, but out of nine cases, in four cases, he has already acquitted and one case is fixed for judgment. Accordingly, it has been prayed to release the petitioner on bail. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, while referring to 2 N.H./ some of the paragraphs of the case diary, submits that there is ample material on record to show complicity of the petitioner. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record as well as the case diary. It is a case in relation to committing dacoity in Bank premises. Of course, the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown, but during investigation, involvement of petitioner and other accused persons transpired. Keeping in view the seriousness of the accusation as well as material on record and also criminal antecedent of the petitioner, the court is not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Prayer for bail stands rejected. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)