IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46082 of 2008 ANIL CHAUDHARY Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 18.12.2008 Heard Sri Yogesh Chandra Verma, senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The case is under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and if one goes through the rejection order passed by the Presiding Officer, F.T.C.Ist, Gaya one could find that even an untrained person in law could not appreciate the order of rejection under the circumstances and facts narrated by the learned Judge while dismissing the prayer for bail. The mere confessional statement of co-accused persons without leading to recovery of any incriminating article has been utilized by the learned Judge to refuse the prayer for bail. Might be that in a particular case(Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav) the Supreme Court said that confessional statement could be sufficient for negating the prayer for bail. But one could not lose sight of the decision of the Supreme Court in Hawala case(V.C.Shukla’s case) which has been described as inadmissible the confession of a co-accused. Let the above named petitioner be released from custody on furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of S.D.J.M. Sherghati, District-Gaya in Barachatti P.S.Case No.191 of 2007. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )