IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38343 of 2009 KALI YADAV @ KALIYA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 12.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The defence of the petitioner is grant of bail to co-accused stated to be a lady as also to another co- accused in Cr. Misc. No. 46254 of 2008. No order granting bail to the other co-accused and whether circumstances similar to that of the present petitioner fall for consideration therein. The allegations are under Sections 121, 121A, 26(1-b)A, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. There is recovery of 78 live cartridges from him. The impugned order of rejection notices that when the police and S.T.F. personnel raided the village, certain persons tried to fled away and were apprehended including the petitioner. The F.I.R. names the three persons apprehended as Sunilji @ Sunilwa @ Sunilda @ Sunil Kumar, the petitioner, Kali Yadav @ Kaliya and Reena Devi. Co-accused Rajesh Yadav @ Nirmaljee granted bail was not of the three persons apprehended at the spot that completely distinguses the case of the 2 petitioner. The antecedent report of the petitioner discloses eight more cases against him with five of them being under Sections 302 and other provisions of the Penal Code and one under Section 307 and other provisions of the Penal Code, Arms Act and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The submission that antecedents cannot be taken into consideration before conviction does not appeal to this Court. At this stage of bail the antecedent of a person is considered relevant in context of the prayer for bail, keeping in mind the conduct of the person confined and the propensity to crime, the likelihood of reverting to crime, if enlarged on bail, balancing the same with the liberty of the individual, not to grant bail to such a person. The prayer for bail is rejected. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)