IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38571 of 2009 TAIRA MANDAL @ JIT NARAYAN MANDAL , son of late Paro Mandal, resident of village- Ramnagar, Mamlakha, P. S. Sabour, Distt- Bhagalpur… Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 2. 13.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner is facing prosecution for offence under section 394 I.P.C. The petitioner though not named in the first information report, his complicity has emerged during course of investigation when the witnesses as also co-accused in their confessional statement had specifically stated about the involvement of the petitioner in a road robbery of trucks in broad day light. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that none of the two witnesses in paragraph 8 and 24 of the case-diary are said to have seen the petitioner to have committed offence in question. Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has only one criminal case pending against him. This stand has been taken on the basis of paragraph 94 of the case-diary. In the opinion of this court, when it has come 2 in the case-diary that witnesses are reluctant to name any person on account of their criminal background and the fact that the name of the petitioner has surfaced at the earliest point of time immediately after the investigation had been undertaken as recorded in paragraph 8 and 24 of the case-diary, the involvement of the petitioner cannot be altogether ruled out specially in the light of corroborative version of the co-accused in his confessional statement. There would be also some difficulty in accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the criminal antecedent of petitioner inasmuch as paragraph 94 of the case-diary relied by him records the name of one Taramandal @ Ajit Kumar Mandal whereas in this bail application, the petitioner has described himself with alias name of Jit Narayan Mandal that too without the name of his father. Road robbery has become a constant disturbing feature in the present day in this State and thus when this court would find that the petitioner has been named even though by way of hearsay evidence which stand duly supported by the confessional statement of co- accused caught at the spot, this court is not inclined to 3 grant bail to the petitioner for the present. That being so, the prayer of the petitioner is rejected for the present. However, he may renew his prayer for bail after completing one year of his judicial custody with a clear averment of his complete criminal antecedent. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)