Order Dharmpal Sinha, J.-Heard Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ramanand Yadav, learned counsel for the State. 2. Fardbeyan which had been made the basis of this case seems to have been recorded at 4 A. M. on 8.11.1991 about an occurrence which allegedly took place at 10 P. M. on the preceding day though the distance of the police station written in the formal part of the F.I.R. is only one kilometre. Although in the Fardbeyan, it is said that when after a meeting, a legislator, Anand Mohan Singh along with his men were proceeding in a car, ahead of which the informant was going on a Motor Cycle, it was found that the road had been blocked by a truck and it is said that this petitioner along with his other men were there and this petitioner who was armed with a rifle, shot at the informant, Shambhu Kumar Singh, who sustained injury. It was also said in the Fardbeyan that two persons, one Kalanand Jha and one Ajay Singh had been caught by the persons of the petitioner's side and taken away but it is not specified as to which of the persons of the petitioner's side caught them. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case diary clearly shows that the Investigating Officer received one information at about 10.10 A. M. on 7.11.1991 itself from one Abdul Sattar that firing was going Oil and thereafter the Police officer had met Anand Mohan Singh, who informed him (the Police Officer) that he was going with the injured and that two persons of his side had been abducted away. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and in my opinion rightly, that this information about which the police officer stated to have received from the legislator, Anand Mohan Singh, ought to have been treated as the F.I.R. He has also pointed out that the Police Officer has also written in the case diary that he proceeded further to the spot where he found that some superior Police Officers had already reached there. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that F.I.R. could have been recorded much earlier giving the earliest version of the occurrence but only on the next morning it came belatedly in the shape of the Fardbeyan that forms the basis of the F.I.R. of this case. He also pointed out that in the information given by the legislator to the Police Officer, there was no specific mention of the fact that this petitioner had any hand either in the shooting or in the abduction. It is definitely indicated even from the Fardbeyan that firing had been resorted to by both the sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that even in the statement of Shambhu Kumar Singh recorded as the Fardbeyan, the petitioner has not been specifically named as abductor and by the statement of one Gaurishankar Jha would indicate that this petitioner had played main role in the abduction and killing of the two persons. 4. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the statement of Shambhu Kumar Singh in the Fardbeyan will show that this petitioner had shot at Shambhu, and the statement of Gaurishankar Jha in the case diary would indicate that this petitioner had played the main role in abduction and killing of the two persons. 5. But the statement of Gaurishankar Jha seems to have been taken for the first time after six weeks of the occurrence and obviously it is highly belated and so an after thought. Even in that statement Gaurishankar Jha seems to have stated that the two abducted persons were fired at by this petitioner; but the post-mortem report indicates that they had sustained bomb injuries too. 6. Considering the totality of the circumstances in the case diary and in the light of what has been stated above I am of the opinion that the statements of Gaurishankar Jha or Shambhu Kumar Singh are not fit to be accepted readily without a pinch of salt. So in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed. 7. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, in connection with Banmankhi (Janki Nagar) P. S. Case No. 258 of 1991. 8. 7. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, in connection with Banmankhi (Janki Nagar) P. S. Case No. 258 of 1991. 8. If special messenger's cost is deposited, the bail order may be sent through special messenger.