IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.22388 of 2010 Shiv Binod Singh Son of Narbadeshwar Singh Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4/ 13.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as Informant. Petitioner is an accused in a case under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, in which Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code was added on 14.10.2009. The informant Gopi Chand Prasad, the owner of Petrol Pump, used to make draft in name of Company for sale proceed. On 14.09.2009, at about 12.30 hours, he in his Maruti Car proceeded with Sheo Nath Prasad to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,81,625/- in Union Bank of India, Doriganj Branch. As soon as he reached Doriganj, two miscreants intercepted them and at the point of country made pistol, succeeded in snatching the bag from the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his name figured in the confessional statement of co-accused Brajesh Kumar. He further submits that one Siya Saran Rai, from whose house a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and one country made pistol was recovered has already been allowed conditional bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.07.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 19207 of 2010. Counsel for the informant submits that in course of raid a sum of Rs. 1, 10,000/- has been recovered from the house of 2 Brajesh Kumar along with other articles. Co-accused, Brajesh Kumar, disclosed the name of his associates including this petitioner. On confessional statement of Brajesh Kumar, shop of the petitioner was searched and a motorcycle, loaded country made pistol and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was recovered. He further submits that the bail application of one Amit Kumar @ Aman has been rejected by this Court by order dated 16.03.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 7772 of 2010. Having heard the counsel for the parties. It appears that in case of Siya Saran Rai, this court observed that if the trial court on a visualize image of the petitioner is satisfied that he is aged approximately 60 years, as distinct from the allegation in the F.I.R. that the unknown accused were aged approximately 30 to 32 years, only in that event, petitioner concerned would be released on bail. In the facts of the case, I am inclined to grant similar observation that in case on visual perception, if the petitioner looks about 60 years, he too would be released on bail to the satisfaction of the court concerned (Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Saran at Chapra in connection with S. Tr. No. 659 of 2009). With the aforesaid condition, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)