IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7025 of 2010 GAINU YADAV . Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 02/ 05/03/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The defence of the petitioner in a police case under Section-364A/34 of Indian Penal Code is that as per allegations he was an accomplice of Banshi Mahto. The impugned order of rejection notices that the alleged victim was married to the daughter of Banshi Mahto and who had filed a case under Section-498A of Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against her husband, the victim. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case let the petitioner above named be enlarged on bail on furnishing the bail- bonds of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand) along with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of A.D.J. III Barh in Sessions Trial No.962/2009 arising out of Bhadaur P.S. Case No.10/2002. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)