IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33492 of 2008 CHANDESHWAR YADAV Versus The STATE OF BIHAR ---with---- Cr.Misc. No.7801 of 2009 GANAURI YADAV Versus The STATE OF BIHAR ------ 4/ 27.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that F.I.R. is against unknown and there is no recovery from the possession of the petitioners and also there was no T.I. parade held. Statement of the two witnesses is there to state that the petitioners were there in course of dacoity and the voice of one Ganaury Yadav was appearing. There is difference in between the age claimed in the F.I.R. and petitioners. In the F.I.R., it is claimed by the informant that dacoits were seen by him and his witnesses and could be identified, which has not been done. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioners be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of A.C.J.M., Danapur in connection with Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case no. 26 of 2008 of Dist. Patna in Cr. Misc. no.33492/2008 and to the satisfaction of A.D.J. XI at Patna in S.Tr. no. 1554/2008 arising out of Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case no. 26 of 2008 of District Patna in Cr. Misc. no. 7801 of 2009. shail (Mandhata Singh, J.)