IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.32485 of 2011 Sonu Kumar Singh Versus The State Of Bihar 2. 15.10.2011. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Later on Section 396 of the I.P.C. was also added. It is alleged that during dacoity one Rajendra Paswan was apprehended by the villagers who disclosed the name of eight persons in which the petitioner’s name did not figure. Subsequently, one of the co- accused Amarnath Kumar @ Guddu Kumar Paswan named the petitioner to the effect that pistol was brought by Amarnath Kumar from the petitioner’s house and the petitioner participated in other dacoity alongwith Amarnath Kumar. The statement has been made in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner has never been made accused under Section 395 of the I.P.C. except three excise cases in which the petitioner is on 2 bail. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no recovery has been made from possession of petitioner. Considering the fact that only confession of subsequently apprehended accused is against the petitioner, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today in connection with Daudnagar P.S. Case No. 53 of 2011 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M. Aurangabad, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. U. K. ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)