IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3466 of 2011 FUCHO MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 17.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant. According to fardbeyan of the informant, the informant did not see the actual killing of the deceased and he gave name of the petitioner on two grounds. Firstly, he stated that seven years ago his nephew was kidnapped and in the aforesaid case petitioner was made accused, and secondly, the deceased sought several informations under Right to Information Act, which caused annoyance to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in the case of so-called abduction, the police submitted final form and also prayed to initiate a proceeding under Section 188 and 211 of the I.P.C. He also points out that in the course of investigation, informant as well his other family members only claimed to have seen the petitioner along with several other persons fleeing from the place of occurrence. Taking into consideration the above stated facts as well as submissions of the parties, let the petitioner, namely, Fucho Mahto be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Samastipur in connection with Khanpur P.S. Case No.92 of 2010. PN (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)