IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53417 of 2007 NANDU SAH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 2.5.2008 Heard. This is a case under Sections 395, 412 & 114 of the IPC. Rupees 1,60,000/- were looted away by the miscreants at the point of gun. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the accused is not named in the FIR. The three co-accused of this case, who faced trial have already been acquitted by a reasoned judgment, thus there is no material against the petitioner to detain him in custody. On the point of absconding from the trial, learned counsel submitted that he had no knowledge of the case. Considering the seriousness of the offence and the fact that the petitioner did not face the trial and his trial to be separated on account of his being remaining absent from the trial, I do not feel inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Prayer for bail is, therefore, rejected. However, he may renew his prayer for bail after framing of the charge. (Rekha Kumari,J) DKS/