IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31599 of 2009 BINAY MAHTON & VINAY MAHTON Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 8.9.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is in custody in a Police case under Section 396 of the Penal Code. The submission is of false implication when the F.I.R. is against 12-15 unknown and that he was a co-villager. The name of the petitioner has transpired from the confessional statement of co-accused Pannu Yadav from whom recovery has been made and has been granted bail in Cr. Misc. No. 30276 of 2003. Learned counsel is unable to inform the Court of the period of custody of co-accused Pannu Yadav. This application is disposed with the direction that the Court below shall verify from records if the petitioner has completed the same period of custody as of Punnu Yadav. If he has, the Court below shall proceed to enlarge the petitioner 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif in connection with Asthawan (Bind) Police Station Case No. 160 of 2001. If the petitioner has not completed the like period of custody, the present application shall be deemed to have been 2 rejected by this Court. In the latter situation, if the petitioner prefers regular bail application before the Court below after completion of like period of custody as Pannu Yadav, the Court below shall then proceed in accordance with law in light of the discussion contained hereinabove. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)