IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19064 of 2010 BRAJESH YADAV, Son of Deochandra Prasad Yadav, resident of Village- Dumma, P.S. Bihta, District- Saharsa...................Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR...............................................Opposite Party. ----------- 03. 27.05.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. The petitioner is languishing in jail since 12.02.2010 in a case registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that on 21.01.2009 the informant’s Motor Cycle, Mobile Phone and cash of Rs. 2000/- were snatched at the point of pistol. Though initially the First Information Report was lodged against unknown but subsequently co-accused, namely, Naresh Kumar Yadav, Amresh Yadav and Mukesh Yadav have confessed their guilt and also named the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s name sprang up in the confession of the co-accused before the police and no recovery has been made from possession of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has not been identified by the informant. 2 It is further contended that the accused from whose possession the recovery has been made, namely, Mukesh Kumar Yadav, has been granted bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 19658 of 2009 while the other accused, who was identified by the informant, was granted bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 19895 of 2009 by a common order dated 09.06.2009 and the certified copy of the order dated 09.06.2009 passed in the aforesaid two Criminal Miscellaneous Applications was produced. Let it be kept on record. Though the computer report reflects that the bail applications of the aforesaid two accused were dismissed but in view of the certified copy being produced on behalf of the petitioner, the records of the aforesaid two Criminal Miscellaneous Applications were called for and from perusal of the records, it appears that the aforesaid two accused were granted bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 19658 of 2009 and Cr. Misc. No. 19895 of 2009. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that apart from the present case there are two other cases against the petitioner in which the 3 petitioner is on bail. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner’s name sprang up during confession of co-accused. Considering the aforesaid submissions that the recovery has not been made from possession of the petitioner and the petitioner’s name sprang up on the confession of the co-accused, who have already been granted bail, let the petitioner, Brajesh Yadav, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul in connection with Kishanpur P.S. Case NO. 15 of 2009. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)