IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.533 of 2011 MANTU KUMAR SINGH @ ANIL KUMAR SINGH @ ANIL KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 26.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the state. Petitioner is not named in the FIR and it appears that in course of investigation, name of this petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of co-accused persons. Although some paragraphs have been referred by learned Additional Sessions Judge to show the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged crime but submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid paragraphs do not show the complicity of the petitioner rather in paragraph-35 of the case diary, some information of spy has been made by the I.O. and in paragraph-32 of the case diary, it has been mentioned that the stolen mobile was being used by co-accused, Birendra Singh and similarly, in paragraph-48 of the case diary, the statement of brother of the victim has been recorded and he has stated name of the petitioner only on the basis of information given to him by the villagers. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as submission of the parties, let the petitioner, namely, Mantu Kumar Singh @ Anil Kumar Singh @ Anil Kumar be released on bail on furnishing bail - 2 - bond of Rs 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Charpokhari P.S. Case No. 146 of 2010 to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara. AKV/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)