IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42051 of 2010 SUNIL KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 15.3.2011 Heard. The recovery is said to be of two effective arms with cartridges, one from the waist of the petitioner and the other from the dickey of the motorcycle. The whole recovery is challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the mere perusal of Annexure 2, which is the photo copy of the original seizure memo, indicates that the names of the seizure witnesses have, later on, been inserted as the FIR was not containing the names of those seizure witnesses. It is very difficult to give such finding at this interlocutory stage. Considering the recovery of two arms, prayer for bail is rejected. However, if the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within a period of one year from the date the petitioner was remanded in Bihar P.S. Case no. 197 of 2010, the court below shall itself release the petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of its own satisfaction. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)