IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42780 of 2009 MD.SARFARAZ @ SARFRAZ son of Mustaque Quadri, Resident of Village Rampur Kodar katti, P.S. Araria, Dist. Araria. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 15/12/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner, facing prosecution for the offence under sections 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code, has his defence for the purpose of bail that he was not named in the First Information Report and in fact an error of record has been committed by the court below in recording that the recovery of mobile was at the instance of the petitioner. There are two notable features in this case, one that the petitioner has criminal antecedent of being an accused at least in two criminal cases of similar nature. That apart, tracing of the mobile cannot be equated with the recovery of mobile. In that view of the matter, when the court below has recorded that the mobile of the Informant was traced it was only by way of location, whereas, recovery of mobile has been made after recording the confessional statement of the petitioner from the possession of one Eqbal about whom the petitioner had said that the mobile in question was passed on to be used by him. 2 That being so, the recovery of mobile at the instance of the petitioner in his own confessional statement being inculpatory in nature and the criminal antecedent of the petitioner are enough for rejection of prayer for bail of the petitioner. This application is accordingly dismissed with a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial of the petitioner. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)