IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5911 of 2009 ANUJ RAVIDAS @ SHAYAMA RAVIDAS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 05. 18.08.2009 Heard both sides. Sole petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted under Sections 395 & 412 of the Penal Code. F.I.R. was lodged against unknown with regard to the house dacoity committed in the house of the informant. It appears that soon thereafter, three accused persons were arrested at a hotel in the township of Patna. Certain looted articles including cash were recovered from their possession. All the three arrested accused persons named the petitioner as their associates in commission of the occurrence. Petitioner was in custody in connection with another case instituted under Section 395 of the Penal Code. He was, thus, remanded in this case on 27.03.2008. It appears that he made a confessional statement and accepted that the mobile used by him is one which was the part of booty. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mobile phone allegedly recovered from his possession has not been put on T.I.P. This court finds that applications for grant of bail made on behalf of co-accuseds, namely, Dilip Kumar and Raju Kumar Saw have already been rejected by this court. Having regard to the materials on record as also 2 keeping in view the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this court, for the present is not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Prayer for bail is, accordingly, rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case has already been committed and is pending for trial. Petitioner is in custody since 27.03.2008. In the circumstances, this court observes that if all the prosecution witnesses are not examined within 07 months from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order in the court below, petitioner shall have liberty to renew prayer for bail. Sym/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)