IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28079 of 2008 UPENDRA YADAV @ DULLI YADAV @ KAMLESH YADAV @ PARMESHWAR YADAV @ BIRENDRA JEE Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 10.12.2008 Heard Smt. Dr. Leelawati Kumari, Advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. The case is under Sections 397 and 396 IPC and 17 of the C.L.A.Act. The petitioner is in custody since 25.10.2007 and so as to justifying his rejection order the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad has made referenece to four paragraphs of the case diary, such as, 140, 141, 216 and 349. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Dr. Leelawati Kumari has read out to me the contents of each of the four paragraphs and has submitted that except the steps taken by the police in investigation of the case there is absolutely no material against any one. Paragraph 140 records the departure of the police officer from village Munnibigha and 141 records his arrival there in the village and search of the house of the present petitioner. - 2 - Likewise paragraph 216 also records the search of the house and two accused persons. Paragraph 349 contains the extract of the supervision note of a higher police officer. The learned Judge has mentioned that there was sufficient material in the above paragraphs. If this is how wrong records are made against the fact of a case it could be very difficult for this court to control the filing of the petitions of the present nature. There does not appear any material as per the learned counsel for the petitioner as also as per the learned A.P.P. justifying the further detention of the petitioner. Let the above named petitioner be released from custody on furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in Obra P.S.Case No.84 of 1999. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )