IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7772 of 2010 AMIT KUMAR @ AMAN S/O SRI RAJU PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NEW ETWARPUR, P.S.- PARSA BAZAR, DISTRICT- PATNA. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 16.3.2010. Heard Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sachidanand Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and Additional Public Prosecutor. The petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Doriganj P.S. Case No.57 of 2009 for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian penal Code, has prayed for grant of bail. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while pressing the bail petition, submits that in this case, though the petitioner was put on T.I. Parade, he could not be identified. He further submits that he has been made accused in this case due to the reason that he was accused in other cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred paragraph-7 of the petition whereby details of cases have been mentioned. He submits that in some - 2 - N.H./ cases, he has been granted bail. In few cases he was even not sent up for trial and in one case, he was discharged. Learned counsel for the State, who has been supported by the learned counsel for the informant, submits that in this case, it is true that petitioner’s name has surfaced on the basis of confession of the accused persons, but subsequently, confession of this petitioner was also recorded by the police. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that confession made before the police has got no evidentiary value. In this case, huge looted amount was also recovered from the house of this petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that even the seized amounts have not been put on T.I. Parade. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as involvement of the petitioner in a number of cases, I am not inclined to grant bail to this petitioner. Prayer for bail is rejected. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.) - 3 -