IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8072 of 2010 MANJEET CHOUDHARY @ MANJEET @ MANCHAL SON OF RAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SINGHIA, MAKANDPUR, P.S. GOPALPUR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 17.3.2010. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, who is in custody in Korha P.S. Case No.122 of 2009 for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, subsequently, charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 394, 412, 120B of the Indian penal Code, has prayed for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the bail petition, submits that though F.I.R. was lodged against unknown and petitioner was arrested, he was never put on T.I.Parade. He also submits that looted ginger was not even recovered from possession of the petitioner, but it was recovered from possession of co-accused. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail. He submits that petitioner had made confessional statement - 2 - N.H./ before the police and he had admitted his guilt. I have also examined the materials available on record. It appears that in the present case, a truck loaded with ginger was looted. During investigation, some of the accused persons were arrested and on their confession, many of the accused persons were arrested. In this case, after the arrest, the petitioner made confession before the police, though it has got no evidentiary value, but during investigation, from possession of this petitioner, some of the articles of the informant truck driver was recovered. In view of the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to this petitioner. Prayer for bail is rejected. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)