IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9067 of 2009 HANIF MIAN @ HANIFI & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 18.4.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are accused in a case under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. One Sikandar Sahani has been named as an accused in the F.I.R. The petitioner submits that he is not the same Sikandar Sahani that is named in the F.I.R. but he belongs to different village. He submits that similarly situated co-accused has been granted bail vide order dated 4.9.2001 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 23540 of 2001. It appears from the prosecution case that the dacoits fired at the police injuring two constables. One of the arrested dacoits revealed the name of the petitioners, as their associates. It appears that the petitioners did not surrender for sever years. It appears that petitioner no. 2 is in custody since 3.5.2007. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. However, petitioner no. 2 may renew his payer for bail after three months. Petitioner no. 1 may renew his prayer for bail after remaining in custody for similar period as of petitioner no. 2. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. P. Kumar (S. P. Singh, J.)