IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8621 of 2011 SOHAN MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 13.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the state. Although First Information Report was lodged against unknown persons but the informant claimed that one person who had taken a room on hire and started residing with his wife, committed the murder of his wife and fled away from there. In course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested and it was detected that he is the husband of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant as well as some other witnesses, have been examined in course of trial but they refused to identify the petitioner in dock. It is contended by him that as a matter of fact, the deceased deserted the petitioner and started residing in a rented house alongwith one unknown person whereas the petitioner went outside the state in connection with his livelihood and that is the reason, the informant could not identify the petitioner in dock. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submission of the parties, 2 let the petitioner, namely, Sohan Mahto be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each amount each in connection with Sessions Trial No. 499 of 2009 arising out of Nagar Saran (Town) P.S. Case No. 167 of 2002 to the satisfaction of A.D.J. (Fast Track Court No.-II), Chapra, Saran. AKV/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)