IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21796 of 2009 SURESH YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 25.08.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking bail in a case instituted under section 392 IPC. As per the prosecution case, three motor-cycle borne criminals/miscreants overtook the informant while riding the motor-cycle and forcibly took away his motor-cycle at gunpoint. It appears that in course of investigation, the petitioner is said to have made confessional statement leading to recovery of looted motor-cycle form the house of the co-accused Nagendra Yadav. The impugned order reflects that the witnesses have supported the factum of looting of the motor- cycle. It further appears that the motor-cycle was recovered in presence of the witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is in custody since 29.01.2009 and there is no recovery from his possession. Learned APP opposed the prayer and submitted that apart from the fact that there has been recovery pursuant to disclosures made by the petitioner, he also carries criminal antecedent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner to bail His prayer for bail is, 2 accordingly, rejected. However, the petitioner is given liberty to renew his prayer for bail if the trial itself is not taken up within ten months from the date of receipt/communication of this order in the court below. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )