IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.10966 of 2010 CHHEDU DAS @ CHHEDI DAS son of Rato Das Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 13.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has been named in the First Information Report on the basis of his name having been disclosed by the father of the informant. On the last date, submission was that witnesses have not identified the petitioner during trial and, so, the petitioner was required to file supplementary affidavit. A supplementary affidavit has been filed annexing therein the evidence of the witnesses examined during trial, but it appears that the father of the informant, who had identified the petitioner, has not been examined as yet. Therefore, identification of the petitioner has remained unchanged. In view of such, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for bail is again rejected. JA/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)