IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24562 of 2010 DHARMENDRA SAHNI Versus STATE OF BIHAR --------- 06/ 02.12.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in paragraph 10 of bail petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned P.P. for the State. Admittedly, neither petitioner is named in the FIR nor in statement of victim boy. It is also apparent from the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned P.P, that victim boy has been recovered on the basis of disclosure made by another accused and not by this petitioner. Furthermore, learned P.P, fairly concedes this fact that ransom was demanded from a mobile which belonged to one Amarjit Sahni and the said mobile set was being used by one Dharmendra Sahni and not by the petitioner but the learned Sessions Judge committed an error of record while passing the impugned order. It is admitted position that several co-accused have already been granted privilege of bail. Sr. S.P, Muzaffarpur has reported that petitioner has been made accused only in the present case and he does not have criminal history of any other case which is evident from letter of Sr. S.P, Muzaffapur vide letter no. 3205 dated 23.10.2010 which has been kept at flag ‘B’. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner (Dharmendra Sahni) is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs - 2 - 10,000-/ with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial no.930/2009 arising out of Motipur P.S. Case no. 68/2009. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)