IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41344 of 2010 PHOOL KUMAR MAHTO @ MAMA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 04. 15.03.2011. Heard. The case is under Sections 395 and 397 of the IPC in which the petitioner is not named in the FIR. In spite of being in custody since 16.6.2010 the petitioner was not put on test identification parade merely because a cellular phone was recovered from his possession which is said to be the cellular phone belonging to the informant or the other victim. The contention is that the E.M.I. number of the cellular phone which was recovered from the petitioner was totally different from the one which was mentioned in the FIR. Regard being had to the above submissions, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in Maharajganj P.S.Case No.33 of 2010. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)