IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33115 of 2008 DINKAR YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 1.9.2008 Heard. The petitioner is named in a case under Section 394 IPC as the informant in his restatement implicates him. The simple contention is that if the petitioner was known to the informant as one of the culprits he ought to have named in the FIR. The second circumstance against the petitioner is that finding of a cellular phone is said to be that of the petitioner at the place of occurrence. The explanation coming from the petitioner is that he had already sold that cellular phone long back from the occurrence. Other material in the case diary, as per the rejection order, raises a suspicion. 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, Banka in Amarpur P.S.Case no.63 of 2007. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )