IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15669 of 2010 MD.RAFIQUE, SON OF LATE IJAT ALI. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 05 13.01.2011 It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of passing of the order dated 29.11.2010, the submission was that the informant was not an eye-witness of the alleged occurrence, but the aforesaid submission was left to be mentioned in order no. 04 dated 29.11.2010. I am not, at all, convinced with the above stated contention because it would appear from perusal of order no. 04 dated 29.11.2010 that it was addressed to this Court that except the informant, none of the prosecution witness has stated the name of the petitioner as assailant, and in view of the aforesaid submission, the order dated 29.11.2010 was passed by this Court. Accordingly, the contention as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner stands rejected. Shahzad (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J )