IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14181 of 2008 SUKHA YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 6. 30.07.2008. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case under Sections 364(A)/120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner’s bail application was earlier rejected on 3.10.2007. The petitioner has been named in the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that several persons have been named in the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that out of the named accused persons in the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure two of them, namely, Vijay Sahani and Upendra Sahani were exonerated by the Investigating Officer. The submission, therefore, is that the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not properly recorded. The submission is not tenable in view of the fact that the purpose of investigation is to confirm and check the statements made by the witnesses. This finding, however, is subject to the final decision of the case after taking evidence of the witness concerned. However, so far as this petitioner is concerned, there is no material to indicate that he was falsely implicated by the victim. - 2 - Learned counsel also submits that one of the co-accused was granted bail by me, and as such, this petitioner is also entitled for grant of bail. The bail was granted for reasons which have been recorded in the bail order and the case of the petitioner stands on a different footing. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that after the petitioner was named in the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he ought to have been put on T. I. Parade to confirm whether the victim had actually identified him by face. It is also submitted that even if this Court’s ordered that T. I. Parade be held, it would have no value due to lapse of time between holding of T. I. Parade and the arrest of this petitioner. As such, it will depend upon the petitioner to request the court to hold a T. I. Parade if he so advised. I do not find any grounds to grant bail to the petitioner. The bail petition of the petitioner is rejected. The trial of this case may be expedited. U.K. (Sheema Ali Khan,J)