IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11228 of 2010 SANJEEV KUMAR, SON OF SHRI RAM BABU RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAHILARAMPUR, P.S. HATHORI, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR…………………………… PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BHUBNESHWAR SHARMA, SON OF LATE NAGESHWAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- AMNOUR, PS. AURAI, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR…………….. OPP. PARTIES -------- 2 27-4-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail in a case under sections 376,302,201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that police introduced the name of the petitioner for some extraneous reason in paragraphs 61 and 62 of the case diary showing to be statements of two witnesses Ramashray Rai and Veena Sharma but later those witnesses were examined under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they did not name this petitioner but supported the prosecution case mentioned in the F.I.R. in which only four persons are named. It was further submitted that the police ultimately submitted final report in favour of the petitioner but the learned Judicial Magistrate issued process against the petitioner only on the basis of statement made in paragraphs 2 61 and 62 of the case diary. It has further been submitted that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. in which the entire incident has been disclosed showing involvement of only four persons who are named in the F.I.R. In the facts and circumstances of the case prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed. In the event of arrest or surrender within six weeks, let petitioner Sanjeev Kumar be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, in connection with Hathori P.S.Case No. 106/2008, subject to the conditions laid down under sections 438(2) Cr.P.C. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)