IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3831 of 2010 VIKASH KUMAR SON OF SUKHDEO RAI, RESIDENT OF PRAGATI NAGAR, NEW MAINPURA, P.S.DANAPUR, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 22.2.2010. Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy-1, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is in jail in Danapur P.S. Case No.283 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. While pressing the bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown and his name transpired only on confessional statement of one of the accused made before the police. Learned counsel further submits that tempo in question was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He further submits that he was made accused in the present case due to reason that he was in another case in custody. Learned counsel for the State also admits that he has been made accused on the basis of confessional statement of the - 2 - N.H./ accused. In view of the facts and circumstances, let the petitioner above named be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri S.C. Sharma, J.M. Ist Class, Danapur (Patna) in Danapur P.S. Case No.283 of 2009. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)