IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20941 of 2010 SUNIL PASWAN Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 19.8.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in paragraph 1 of this application. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case under section 396 of the Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the informant belong to the same village. It would appear from the order of the learned Sessions Judge as well as from the F.I.R. that the petitioner is well known to the prosecution side, still no one has named the petitioner as an accused. Further none of the witnesses have stated that they recognized the petitioner either by face or by voice or as one fleeing away. Learned State counsel with reference to paragraphs 18 and 32 of the case diary submits that there was some dispute between the petitioner and the prosecution side regarding demand of Chanda wherein the petitioner had given threat. It appears that none of the inmates of the house claimed that they have recognized the petitioner. The name of the petitioner does not figure in the confessional statement of co- accused. The petitioner is well known to the informant and he is in custody since 22.2.2010. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the 2 KHAN petitioner Sunil Paswan is directed to be released on bail in connection with Fatehpur P.S. Case No.29 of 2010 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya subject to the condition that he shall not absent himself in the court below for two consecutive dates till four witnesses are examined in trial. (S.P.Singh,J)