IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1606 of 2011 ARBIND KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02/ 05.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. P.P. for the State. Admittedly, petitioner is named in the first information report and furthermore, it is an admitted position that the alleged occurrence took place under the jurisdiction of Bikram police station whereas the petitioner was caught by the villagers under the jurisdiction of Naubatpur police station. It is stated that looted amount of Rs 50,000/- was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner but admittedly, above stated recovery has been made by a private person and not by the police. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on account of land dispute and, as a matter of fact, the petitioner was well known to the informant prior to the alleged occurrence. Taking into consideration the above stated facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, particularly, this aspect of the matter that the alleged recovery has been made by a private person, let the petitioner, Arbind Kumar, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, District Patna in Bikram P.S. Case no. 148/2010. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)