IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33525 of 2010 ASHUTOSH CHOUDHARY son of Ramesh Prasad Choudhary, resident of village-Arraha, P.S.-Kishanpur, District-Supaul. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 11.2.2011. Heard Mr. Mahendra Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner, who is in custody in connection with S.T. No.143 of 2010 arising out of Raghopur P.S. Case No.80 of 2009 for the offences under sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code since 9.2.2010, has prayed for grant of bail. It was a case of dacoity committed in the Bank in which first information report was lodged against unknown accused persons. During investigation, involvement of the petitioner surfaced and, thereafter, he was made accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s name has come from the mouth of son of the landlord of the building in which the Bank was situated and, as such, had the petitioner was identified by the said witness, the name of the petitioner should have been mentioned in the first information report. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner it is a best ground for extending the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for bail. Besides hearing, I have also gone through the 2 materials on record particularly the impugned order which shows that trial in the case is going on, which has been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. Since trial is in progress, the court is not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail stands rejected. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)