IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2720 of 2011 NAWAL KISHORE PRASAD CHAURASIYA @ NAWAL KISHORE CHAURASIYA SON OF SHEO MANGAL CHAURASIYA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 17.05.2011. Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State. Petitioner is named in a case instituted under Section 395, 397 of the Indian Penal Code and it is stated that one witness identified the petitioner committing the alleged crime. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the witness named Maimul Khatoon claimed to have identified the petitioner committing the alleged crime and the aforesaid witness Maimul Khatoon is resident of village Champapur Musahri which is situated 100 yards away from the tola of the petitioner. It is also contended by him that informant is also resident of village Champapur Musahri but he did not claim to have identified the petitioner committing the alleged crime and except the single identification there is none to name the petitioner in the present case. Taking into consideration, the above stated submissions of the parties as well as period of detention of 2 the petitioner, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Avinash Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Raxaul at Motihari in connection with Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No. 87 of 2010 (Trial No. 1828 of 2010). Ibrar/- ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)