IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19207 of 2010 SIYA SARAN RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03 02.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the informant. The submission in a Police case under Sections 395, 412 of the Indian Penal Code is that the F.I.R. is against four unknown, aged approximately 30 to 32 years. The name of the petitioner has transpired on confession of co- accused only. The petitioner is stated to be 60 years of age in paragraph-13 of the application. Learned counsel for the State points out that the allegations are of loot of a petrol pump by approximately ten motorcycle borne criminals. Prayer for bail of co-accused whose name transpired during investigation on confession also been rejected in Cr. Misc. No. 7772 of 2010. Learned counsel for the State acknowledges that the case diary contains no material with regard to the age of the petitioner. Counsel for the informant is also unable to assist the Court on this aspect. This order conditional in nature directs 2 that, if the trial court on a visualize image of the petitioner is satisfied that he is aged approximately 60 years, as distinct from the allegation in the F.I.R. that the unknown accused were aged approximately 30 to 32, only in that event, it shall proceed to enlarge the above named petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional District Judge, Saran at Chapra in connection with Doriganj P.S. Case No. 57 of 2009, S.T. No. 659 of 2009. If the court below be otherwise not satisfied of his advanced age, it shall be at liberty to decline to release the petitioner by a reasoned order, when the present application shall be deemed to have been dismissed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)