IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4753 of 2011 MANOJ PASWAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 29.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the state. Petitioner is not named in the FIR and in course of investigation, it came to light that the seized vehicle belongs to the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner has been made accused in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seized vehicle belongs to one, Gayatri Devi who happens to be sister-in-law of the petitioner and aforesaid, Gayatri Devi has already been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by this court till submission of the charge sheet. It is further contended by him that the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected by learned Addl. Sessions Judge treating him as owner of the seized vehicle which is not correct. It appears that on previous date, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had assured before another bench to disclose the name of persons who had loaded the explosive substances on the vehicle in question but submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not aware about the name of the above-said 2 person, so he is not in a position to disclose the above-said fact. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions of the parties, let the petitioner, namely, Manoj Paswan be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 339 of 2009 to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. AKV/- ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)