IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.108 of 2011 UDAY KUMAR @ UDAY KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03/ 28.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. P.P. for the State. Petitioner seeks his bail in connection with Danapur P.S. 155/2010 registered under section 394 of the IPC and subsequently, sections 411 and 120B of the IPC were also added. Petitioner is not named in the first information report but during the course of investigation, name of the petitioner came in the confessional statement of co-accused Lodha Gope and allegedly, one mobile was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that recovered mobile is not stolen property of the instant case and, as a matter of fact, the person from whose possession the mobile was taken away has not been examined by the Investigating Officer. Taking into consideration the above stated facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, let petitioner, Uday Kumar @ Uday Kumar Singh, 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 in Danapur P.S. Case no. 155 of 2010. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)