IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16643 of 2010 PAWAN SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 20.5.2010 The defence of the petitioner in a Police case in which charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 364, 120B and 34 of the Penal Code, is that he is not named in the F.I.R. which otherwise names one Chotu Kumar son of Subash Singh as the person who called the son of the informant from his house. There is no statement that Chotu Kumar was accompanied by any other. The petitioner has been named subsequently on suspicion only. Counsel for the State emphasizes that the impugned order of rejection notices several paragraphs of the case diary, but very fairly states that he is unable to assist the Court of the nature of the materials in those paragraphs so as to curtail the liberty of the citizen. This Court finds it difficult to curtain the liberty of the petitioner in the nature of the allegation on basis of unreasoned and unsubstantiated order. Even though in a bail application a detailed order is not required nonetheless the Court is briefly required to indicate what passed its mind in the nature of the 2 materials with regard to the allegations, the offence made out, the likelihood of the punishment that may follow, likelihood of the petitioner to commit crime if granted bail etc., this Court finds difficult to deny the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner above named be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge-II Nawada in connection with Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2010/ 118 of 2010 arising out of Warsaliganj P.S. Case No. 146 of 2009. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)