IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33104 of 2009 TUNTUN @ BIKKI @ BIKASH YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 16.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is in custody in a Police case under Sections 394 of the Penal Code. The submission is that in an F.I.R. against three unknown, the only material against him is the alleged confession of the co-accused before the Police, inadmissible in evidence, when there is no recovery either from the petitioner or from the co-accused. The petitioner is stated to have antecedents of one case only under the Arms Act. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, abovenamed be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri A.K. Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, Birpur at Supaul in Raghopur P.S. Case No. 106 of 2008. Both the sureties must be his mother and father respectively, whose photograph and proof of residence must be appended on the bail bonds, which shall be verified by the court below through the Investigating Officer before enlarging the petitioner on bail. The petitioner shall be required to be 2 appropriately represented on each date and also to physically appear on the dates that the court below so directs, failing which the court below shall deal appropriately in accordance with law. If he is found involving in any fresh prosecution during the pendency of the present bail, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of the present bail. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)