IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24368 of 2010 DEEPAK KUMAR, SON OF LATE JASHWANT PRASAD, R/O BHATHA ROAD, DANAPUR, P.S.-DANAPUR, DISTRICT-PATNA. …..Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 6 27.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner, who is in custody since 16.7.2009 in connection with Rupaspur P.S. Case No.32 of 2009 for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case the petitioner has been made accused only on the confession of co-accused and he is in custody since long. It was submitted that though the charges have been framed, till date witnesses have not been examined. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of bail. In the present case informant’s motorcycle and his other articles were looted by three unknown persons. Thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged. During investigation, one of the co-accused was arrested, who made confession and disclosed the name of the petitioner. Besides this, on his disclosure, motorcycle was recovered. In this case, earlier antecedent report of petitioner was called for, which is kept as flag-A. On perusal of the antecedent report, it appears that the petitioner is habitual offender of such offence. At least he is accused in four cases relating to offence 2 under Sections 394, 392 of the I.P.C. as well as Arms Act. Keeping in view the criminal antecedent of the petitioner as well as the fact that on confession of the accused motorcycle was recovered and he had disclosed the name of the petitioner as also on the fact that case is at the stage of trial, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. Since the petitioner is in custody since long it is desirable to direct the court below to take all steps for early conclusion of the trial. PN (Rakesh Kumar, J.)