IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12071 of 2008 TINKU SHARMA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 11.8.2008 Heard. The petitioner is named in the FIR in a case under Section 394 IPC as being identified as one of the criminals who committed the robbery by snatching his motorcycle as in the dickey of the informant Rs.25,000/- was kept. The contention is that the recovery of Rs.5,000/- from the possession of the petitioner is false as the petitioner claimed the money belonging to him. The further contention is that the FIR initially does not indicate that any of the accused was identified but subsequently it names each and every accused with all descriptions. On perusal of the FIR what could be found is that initially the informant was narrating the incident and having done so, he stated as to who had been identified by him. Petitioner is named in the FIR in a case of robbery and considering that I am not inclined presently to release the petitioner on bail. Petition is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )