IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19289 of 2010 MUSAFIR MAHTO Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02. 27.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is languishing in jail since 11.01.2010 in a case registered under Sections 341, 342, 307/34 of the I.P.C. It is alleged that the nephew of the informant was missing and was subsequently recovered. It is alleged that in the hospital the victim conveyed to informant that one Laddu assaulted him and on that basis the informant raised suspicion against the petitioner also in the whole occurrence. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and only on the basis of circumstantial evidence i.e. Laddu is the son of the petitioner, the petitioner has been roped in the present case. It is submitted by Mr. Dashrat Mehta, learned counsel for the State that there was some injury mark on the neck of the victim boy but the victim boy has named only Laddu. Considering the aforesaid submissions that the 2 victim boy named only Laddu and the petitioner is in custody since 11.01.2010, let the petitioner namely Musafir Mahto be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Muzaffarpur in connection with Sakra P.S. Case No. 250 of 2008. Shageer (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)