IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.705 of 2011 ARBIND YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 10.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the state. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Akorhigola P. S. Case No. 32 of 2010 registered under section-395 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner is not named in the FIR but it appears from perusal of impugned order of learned Sessions Judge that the name of this petitioner came in this case in the statement of one witness, namely, Dhanjee Rai at paragraph-69 of the case diary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded in presence of the aforesaid Dhanjee Rai but at the time of recording of fardbeyan, aforesaid witness, Dhanjee Rai did not disclose name of the petitioner and had the witness, Dhanjee Rai had identified the petitioner at the time of commission of the alleged crime, he would have certainly disclosed the name of the petitioner at the time of recording of fardbeyan of the informant. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, the petitioner, namely, Arbind Yadav - 2 - is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Akorhigola P. S. Case No. 32 of 2010 to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram. AKV/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)