IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39375 of 2008 PERMANAND PRASAD @ PERMANNAND RAI … … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioner: Mrs. Sucheta Yadav For the State: Shri Dashrath Mehta, APP ----------- 4. 13.1.2009 Heard. As may appear from the facts noted in the rejection order, the allegation is that the petitioner fabricated the Vakalatnama and concealed some facts. The fabrication of the Vakalatnama was inferred on account of the fact that it neither bore the thumb impression of the accused Sakal Rai alias Sakaldeo Rai nor it bore the signature or seal of the jail authorities. Concealment of fact was probably of earlier rejection order. On perusing the record of Cr. Misc. No. 18338 of 2001 which is the basis for launching the prosecution, I find that there is no material to support the facts alleged. If at all a Vakalatnama could be forged and fabricated, there is no evidence to indicate that it was really so. Even if one could go 2 so as to getting it as a forged document then still the courts have to go into an enquiry and record a finding in that behalf. Let the petitioner Permanand Prasad alias Permannand Rai be released on his furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/-( ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, Patna, in Kotwali P.S.Case No. 413 of 2003. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, ,J.)