IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.108 of 2010 MD.JUMMAN @ JUMMAN @ JUMMAN MIAN . Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 3. 23.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The defence on behalf of the petitioner in a Police case under Section 395 of the Penal Code is of false implication when the impugned order of rejection notices as follows:- “Learned P.P. opposed the bail on the ground of seriousness of the allegation but has clearly admitted that the police could not procure sufficient material and evidence against this petitioner except extra Judicial confession of one co-accused Md. Siddeque, who has confessed and disclosed the name of this petitioner.” Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner above named be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria in connection with Forbesganj (Simraha) P.S. Case No. 191/09. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)