IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39883 of 2009 SUNIL YADAV, son of Munshi Yadav, resident of village Gokulpur, P.S. Kurtha, District Arwal Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 23.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner though not named for offence u/ss 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code in the F.I.R., his implication has been emerged in course of investigation wherein he has been invariably named by almost all the witnesses including the three injured witnesses. That apart the petitioner has made his own confessional statement which tallies with the objective finding of the Investigating Officer relating to looted articles. The petitioner has also criminal antecedent and therefore, merely because the informant in her statement to the police had not named the petitioner that would not make statement of all the persons to be irrelevant, especially when one of the victim injured was said to be taken away by the members of the gang of dacoits including the petitioner about whom she had specifically stated in her statement before 2 the police. Over emphasis of the counsel for the petitioner on the conduct of the informant of only going to add the name of the petitioner in her further statement despite failing to do so in the F.I.R. can at best make the informant alone unacceptable or unreliable but that by itself would not affect the statement of other persons specifically naming the petitioner in course of their statement before the police. That being so, this Court for the reasons indicated above, is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and his prayer for bail is accordingly rejected. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/