IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5212 of 2008 RAJEEV KUMAR @ JUNISH @ GUNISH @ GANESH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 9/5/2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the State. In this case petitioner is an accused for the offence under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is nothing against the petitioner except a mobile phone which is only link brought by police in course of investigation to connect him in this case and is wholly insufficient to establish his complicity in this case. It has further been submitted that a co- accused, namely, Aditya Sharma, who was apprehended at the spot, has already been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 9364 of 2007 vide order dated 23.4.2007. Counsel for the State with the help of case diary, however, submits that this is case of a train robbery and there are materials to show the involvement of the petitioner. He has also explained that co-accused Aditya Sharma was granted bail because he was initially named in the confessional statement of a co-accused and thereafter he was apprehended. Considering the aforementioned submissions and specially the fact that the mobile phone of the petitioner, which was issued in his name, has been used for threatening the informant and his family members saying that no First Information Report should be instituted and that the petitioner having criminal antecedents has not even completed a period of one year custody in this case, this Court is not inclined to grant him bail at this stage. His bail application is therefore rejected. The petitioner may renew prayer for bail after remaining in custody for further period of six months. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar.