IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.967 of 2011 MADAN SINGH @ MANDAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 11.01.11. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is languishing in custody since 16.06.2010 in a case registered under Section 364/34 of the I.P.C. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on 10.06.2010 the petitioner alongwith Umesh Singh and Parmesh Singh took the husband of the informant. Subsequently, the informant came to know that the aforesaid three persons were assaulting the husband of the informant. The reason for the occurrence has been described to be some dispute with regard to the sale of land. The impugned order suggests that this petitioner confessed that the victim was strangulated by Vijay Singh whereas this petitioner and Umesh Singh caught hold of the deceased. It is submitted that confession before the police has no evidenciary value. Moreover, the occurrence took place on 10.06.2010 whereas F.I.R. was lodged on 12.06.2010 and still the dead body has not been recovered which further clouds the confession by this petitioner before 2 the police and statement has been made in paragraph no.12 of the petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Considering the fact that after two days of the occurrence, F.I.R. was lodged, the impugned order only suggests confession of the petitioner before the police and the period under custody, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C. J. M. Bhojpur at Ara in connection with Ara Muffasil P.S. Case No. 124 of 2010. Learned court below will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner if the petitioner defaults for three consecutive dates during trial. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.)