IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30785 of 2009 BIKRAM YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----- 2/ 03.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. for the offence under Section 395 of I.P.C. Neither there is any recovery nor he has been put on T.I. Parade and his name appeared only on confession made by the co-accused which in no case can be taken as legal evidence but in cases of dacoity, confession of co-accused is of much importance as it makes the ground for progress of investigation. Only custody of accused for the offence under section 395 of I.P.C. reveals several evidence including recovery, his identification in T.I. Parade etc. So, petitioner deserves no bail. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner is rejected. shail (Mandhata Singh, J.)