IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3692 of 2011 RAJ KUMAR JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR -------- 02/ 18.03.2011 Supplementary affidavit is filed on behalf of the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. P.P. for the State. Petitioner is not named in the first information report and it appears from perusal of the impugned order that the name of the petitioner came in this case in the confessional statement of co- accused Md Kalim and furthermore, on the basis of disclosure made by the petitioner the vehicle which had been used in committing the alleged crime has been recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out annexure 2 to the supplementary affidavit and submits that as per seizure list, one Amreda of Mahendra was recovered in course of investigation whereas as per prosecution case, white coloured Sumo had been used in committing the alleged crime. So, the above stated finding of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is nothing but only an error of record. Taking into consideration the above stated facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, let petitioner, Raj Kumar Jha, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Naugachia Dist. Bhagalpur in Gopalpur (Rangra) P.S. Case no. 154 of 2010. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)