IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29308 of 2010 1. GORE CHAUHAN @ NIWASH CHAUHAN @ GORE LAL CHAUHAN S/O DAWARIKA CHAUHAN @ DWARIKA CHAUHAN 2. CHHOTE CHAUHAN S/O LATE RUPAN CHAUHAN Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 31.08.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners seek bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 364 (A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Considering that the petitioner no. 2 has not been named in the First Information Report nor was named by the alleged kidnapped victim, let the petitioner no. 2 (Chhote Chauhan s/o Late Rupan Chauhan), be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 5,000/-(Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each or any other surety to be fixed by the court concerned to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in connection with Atri P.S. Case No. 29/2010, subject to the conditions, (i) That one of the bailor will be a close relative of the petitioner who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioner, (ii) That 2 the affidavit shall clearly state that the petitioner is not an accused in any other case and if he is he shall not be released on bail, (iii) That the bailor shall also state on affidavit that he will inform the court concerned if the petitioner is implicated in any other case of similar nature after his release in the present case and thereafter the court below will be at liberty to initiate the proceeding for cancellation of bail on ground of misuse, (iv) That the petitioner will give an undertaking that he will receive the police papers on the given date and be present on date fixed for charge and if he fails to do so on two given dates and delays the trial in any manner, his bail will be liable to be cancelled for reasons of misuse, (v) That the petitioner will be well represented on each date if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail will be liable to be cancelled. So far as per the petitioner no. 1 is concerned since it appears to be a case of financial dispute between the parties, the petitioner no. 1 is refused bail at this stage but with a liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. The court below is directed not to bifurcate the trial of the 3 petitioner for commitment or for framing of charge for the aforesaid order in case it is done so, the prayer for bail for petitioner no. 1 shall not be considered. Fahad. ( Anjana Prakash, J. )