IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36248 of 2009 SHEO KUMAR YADAV son of Ram Babu Yadav, resident of village- Kaipur, P.S.-Khusrupur, Dist.-Patna. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 10.3.2010. Heard Mr. Krishna Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Bakhtiarpur P.S. Case No.72 of 2003 registered for the offence under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during investigation two witnesses had claimed to identify this petitioner however, one of the witnesses has sworn affidavit to the effect that he had not made such statement and second witness is dead. He further submits that the petitioner was not put on T.I.Parade. He also submits that other co-accused persons, namely, Dilip Prasad and Pokhan Yadav have been granted bail by this court. On these grounds learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of bail. So far as the cases of Dilip Prasad and Pokhan Yadav are concerned their cases are not similar to the case of the petitioner. Their names have come in the confessional statement of co-accused. However, the petitioner has been named by two witnesses. So far as non-production of the petitioner on test identification parade, I am of the view that if witnesses have stated regarding complicity of the petitioner, in that case it is not essential to put him of T.I.parade. 2 Without going into the merit of the case, as the trial has already commenced, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail is rejected. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)