IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20871 of 2009 BHIM KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 05.08.2009 Heard both sides. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted initially under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code but charge-sheet was submitted under Section 395 IPC. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 24.6.2005. A loaded truck was looted on the highway and the conductor and driver were thrown outside the truck causing their death. Learned counsel fairly submits that although the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but soon after the occurrence, some of the co-accused were arrested who named the petitioner as one of their co-associates. He states that co-accused Shambhu Sah and Suresh Sah named the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner evaded arrest for about 05 years. Learned counsel states that apart from this case, he is accused of a different case of identical nature. It is contended that he is in custody since 29.3.2009. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant him privilege of bail. His prayer for bail stands rejected. 2 However, if the trial of the case is not taken up within 10 months of the receipt/communication of a copy of this order, the petitioner shall have liberty to renew his prayer for bail. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )