IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18199 of 2010 GAUTAM KUMAR & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02. 26.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Petitioners are languishing in jail in a case registered under Sections 302, 201/34 of the I.P.C. In the F.I.R., it is alleged that the victim has some illicit relationship with Rajeev Singh and hence suspicion has been raised against Rajeev Singh but subsequently name of the petitioners sprang up on the confession of Rajeev Singh before the police during investigation. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that except the confessional statement of Rajeev Singh no evidence has come during investigation against the petitioners and this was argued before the learned Sessions Judge also which was not controverted by the learned counsel for the State and the impugned order suggests that the bail has been rejected on the ground that there are circumstantial evidence against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that though there is no direct allegation against the 2 petitioners but there is circumstantial evidence. Considering the aforesaid submissions particularly the circumstantial evidence, let the petitioners namely 1. Gautam Kumar 2. Guddu Singh 3. Sateyendra Singh, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, Rohtas in connection with Tiouthu P.S. Case No. 106 of 2010. Shageer (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)