IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22403 of 2009 MD.ALLAUDDIN Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 27.10.2009 Learned counsel appearing for the informant, namely, Shri Gagandeo Prasad Yadav again prays for time for filing a supplementary affidavit. The prayer is refused. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned A.P.P. has read out to me the paragraphs of the case diary which have been mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge, Madhubani, in his rejection order. Besides, the learned A.P.P. has also referred to paragraph 44 of the supplementary case diary containing the statement of a witness. After having considered the above material in the light of the contentions that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. whose name appeared for the first time in the confessional statement of a co-accused who 2 has been admitted to bail in Cr. Misc. No. 938 of 2009 and further that the identification is claimed on the basis of voice which is too week evidence to be relied upon and considering also that the name of the petitioner and other accused started being involved by co-villagers after more than 13 hours of the occurrence and even after a day, the Court directs release of the petitioner, namely, Md. Allauddin on his furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhanjharpur, Madhubani, in Laukahi(Andhramath) P.S. Case No. 142 of 2006, G.R. No. 8 of 2007. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)