IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49546 of 2008 BINAY KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 10.12.2008 Heard Dr. Leelawati Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Mehta, learned A.P.P. It could not be better illustration of the fact as to how the close minded Judges apply to the fact of a case when it comes in the lower court by way of a petition for bail. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. of a case under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code but the learned Presiding Officer, F.T.C.-IV, Gaya, has written that the petitioner was named in the F.I.R. Thereafter he went on to indicate two paragraphs 97 and 106 of the case diary and stated that the informant had named him in his further statement and that the petitioner was arrested by a police of Jamhaur police station and he confessed his guilt. The contention is that if at all the informant knew or he had the knowledge of the commission of the offence, he ought to have given the name of the petitioner in the F.I.R.. At this stage learned A.P.P. is justifying the inclusion of the name of the petitioner through a police spy. The fact remains that the petitioner not being named in the F.I.R. inspite of being in custody since 17.8.2008 was not put on T.I.P. Let petitioner named above be released on bail on furnishing personal recognition bond of Rs.500/-(Five hundred) without any surety to the satisfaction of the Railway Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, - 2 - in connection with Sone Nagar Rail P.S. case no.7 of 2008. sudip ( Dharnidhar Jha,J )