IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35753 of 2008 SAKET KUMAR @ CHHOTU Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 12.11.2008 Heard Dr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. There is definite case in the written report that the informant was relieved of a Sony Erricson cellular phone set which was operating a SIM of Airtel, the same cellular phone with the same SIM was found in the possession of the petitioner. The contention is that the petitioner is innocent and as such he was very much sitting in his house with the theft property as he did not know the same as being obtained in theft. The further contention is that the petitioner in spite of being in custody since 8.1.2008 was neither put on test identification parade nor any witness has said in his statement that he had seen the petitioner indulging in the offence. The very fact of being found in possession of theft property in a case under Section 394 IPC does not permit to release the petitioner on bail. Petition is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )