IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30218 of 2009 MAHENDRA CHOUDHARY @ BULLA DEVI (CHOUDHARY) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 24.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks bail from custody in a Police case under Section 395 of the Penal Code. It is submitted that the F.I.R. is against unknown. There is no recovery from the petitioner. He has not been put on T.I. Parade. On unfounded suspicion, he remained in custody since 27.2.2009. Learned counsel for the State from the impugned order points out that the court below has referred to several paragraphs of the case diary. Unfortunately, there is no discussion in the order that what has transpired against the petitioner in those concerned paragraphs except for recording the words ‘complicity’. This Court has no option but to hold that the complicity of the petitioner is his own alleged confessional statement as noticed in the impugned order itself. The petitioner is entitled to bail on the recitals in the impugned order by which his prayer for bail has been rejected. Let the petitioner, abovenamed be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of 3rd 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sasaram (Darigaon) P.S. Case No. 458 of 2008. Let a copy of this order be placed before the Presiding Officer, who has passed the impugned order. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)