IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3525 of 2011 RAM PRATAP MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ------ 02/ 18.03.2011 Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. P.P. for the State. It would appear from perusal of the record that the petitioner is not named in the first information report and his prayer for bail has been rejected by the learned court below on two grounds. Firstly, it has been mentioned by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that petitioner has been identified by the witness and secondly, one stolen mobile has been recovered from his possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that no doubt, petitioner was put on TI Parade but he was identified by one Nathuni Yadav who happens to be owner of the vehicle and had not seen the alleged occurrence and so far as recovery of the mobile is concerned, he drew my attention towards this fact that the seized mobile is not stolen property of this case. Taking into note of the above stated submissions as well as materials available on record, let petitioner, Ram Pratap Mahto, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Addl. Sessions Judge FTC No. I, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial no. 427/2010 arising out of Bahedi P.S. Case no. 65 of 2010. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)