IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25085 of 2008 BHUWAN YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 16.9.2008 Heard. The petitioner is not named in the FIR of a case under Section 395 IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Araria has referred to the paragraphs 9 to 11 of the case diary in which the witnesses have named the petitioner as one of the accused persons who was identified. The simple contention is that persons like Satyanarayan Mahaldar and others examined in those paragraphs are the full brother or family members of the informant. Their statement was recorded much after the drawing up of the FIR. The FIR was drawn up after more than 12 hours of the incident and if at all the petitioner had been identified by any of the persons as close as the full brother of the informant it was expected that the name of such accused persons must have appeared in the FIR. The further contention is that in fact the evidence of prosecution is a creation of the police and an attempt to falsely implicate the petitioner in serious offence for reasons best known to them. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances, let the above named petitioner be released from custody on furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/-(five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria in Narpatganj(Fulkaha)P.S.Case no.246 of 2007. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )