IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29034 of 2010 ROHIT PATEL @ DABLU PATEL Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 11.08.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. The petitioner is languishing in jail since 02.05.2010 in a case registered under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the I.P.C. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the informant brother’s dead body was recovered from a Well of one Binod whose house was found locked by the informant and from the window the informant gathered that the house was cleaned hence it was suspected that murder took place in the house of Binod. Though in the last portion of the F.I.R. several persons have been named including the petitioner. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. suggests that the informant is not an eye witness. The impugned order suggests that the learned Sessions Judge after going through the case dairy came to the conclusion that there are circumstantial evidences against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State submits that paragraphs referred in the impugned order reflect that the victim received three 2 injuries. Considering the fact that after going through the case diary the learned Sessions Judge recorded the finding that the case is based upon the circumstantial evidence, let the petitioner, Rohit Patel @ Dablu Patel, 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;., Muzaffarpur in connection with Sariya (Jaitpur) P.S. Case No. 41 of 2010. U.K. ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)