IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9280 of 2011 MUMTAJ MANSURI @ MUMTOJ MANSOORI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02/ 30.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. P.P. for the State. Petitioner is not named in the first information report nor anything has been recovered from his conscious possession. It would appear from perusal of the impugned order that in course of investigation some witnesses have claimed to have seen the petitioner roaming near the place of the occurrence prior to the alleged occurrence which has been incorporated at paras 40 and 41 of the case diary and after recording aforesaid paras statements of one Mahesh Chaudhary and Brij Kishore Chaudhary have been recorded and both the aforesaid witnesses claimed to have seen the petitioner committing the alleged crime. Had the aforesaid witnesses identified the petitioner committing the alleged crime, they would have certainly disclosed name of the petitioner to the informant before recording his fardbeyan, Taking into note of the above stated circumstances, let petitioner, Mumtaj Mansuri @ Mumtoj Mansoori, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in Runnisaidpur P.S. Case no. 403 of 2010. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)