IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37756 of 2010 Arun Tiwary, Son of Late Yogi Tiwary, resident of Village- Radhapur, P.S. Sursand, District- Sitamarhi -------- Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03 09-12-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Indu Bala Pandely, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Sursand P.S. Case No.8 of 2010 registered for offences under Section 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of bail. In the present case, F.I.R. was lodged against unknown accused persons on an accusation that in the night after breaking the lock of the Bank about Rs.3 Lacs and odd was stolen and thereafter accused persons also committed dacoity in the house of one Kamlesh Kumar Tiwary. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the bail petition, submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was submitted that in the case diary none of the witnesses have whispered against the petitioner. However, the Investigating Officer of the case, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was accused in some cases, has made the petitioner as accused in the present case. It has further been submitted that during the investigation a case was made out that earlier the petitioner was in good term with Kamlesh Kumar Tiwary and due to some dispute with Kamlesh Kumar tiwary , the petitioner had committed the 2 crime. During the investigation, Kamlesh Kumar Tiwary was examined, but he has not indicated regarding the involvement of the petitioner. On the aforesaid ground, it has been prayed to grant bail to the petitioner. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor after going through the case diary, submits that the Investigating Officer had collected some information regarding involvement of the petitioner and, as such, keeping in view the seriousness of accusation , the petitioner may not be extended the privilege of bail. It appears from the record, none of the witnesses have supported the allegation against the petitioner. Keeping in view the materials available on record, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for extending the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- ( ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupri at Sitamarhi in connection with Sursand P.S. Case No.8 of 2010. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)