IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24009 of 2008 ALOK KUMAR SINHA @ AKASH @ SUNNY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 1.7.2008 Heard. It is true that co-accused who is named in the F.I.R. on account of bearing specific allegation has been granted bail by Annexure-2 but the reason is that there was no recovery from the possession of the said co-accused, rather the vehicle was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is clearly indicated in the rejection order that paras-70 and 71 of the case diary indicated factum of recovery and possession of the vehicle by this petitioner, considering which I am not inclined to direct release of the petitioner on bail. His prayer for bail is dismissed. However, he may renew his prayer for bail after six months from the present order. sudip ( Dharnidhar Jha, J )