IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24927 of 2008 MD. SHAHABUDDIN Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 9.9.2008 Heard. The reports of the trial court have been received and those appear at flags-A and B. By the report at Flag-B, the learned Magistrate has reported that the date fixed for framing of charges against the petitioner was 16.8.2008. By the report at flag-A, the learned Magistrate has cronologically recorded the dates and action of the defence in not allowing him to proceed with the trial so much so that even jurisdiction of the court was challenged in proceeding with the trial. After dismissing the petition, the matter could be posted for hearing on framing of charges. In the meantime, the presiding officer was transferred and, as such, delay was caused. It is not that the petitioner is in custody in the solitary case in which he is presently seeking bail. As per contention of both sides it remains an undisputed fact that the petitioner is in custody in a good number of cases. But the offences for which the present F.I.R. was lodged were under sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, out of which section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is bailable and punishment prescribed for offence under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is two years which could be inflicted by any Magistrate. This case was lodged on 2.5.2007 and the petitioner could be presumed to be in custody in this case from - 2 - 16.5.2007 when he was remanded in this case. The petitioner has already served quite some substantial part of the sentence which could be inflicted upon him, if he is found guilty. As indicated in the report the trial is yet to take off which was supposed to have taken off by the Court after considering framing of charges on 16.8.2008. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, let petitioner named above be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, in connection with Siwan Mufassil P.S. case no.97 of 2007. It is made very clear that if the petitioner exhibits the same sort of behaviour as he did allegedly, then in that case and in case of a report being presented before the Magistrate and the Magistrate being satisfied about that, could presume that this Court had not passed the present order and could cancel the bond of the petitioner and remand him to custody. sudip ( Dharnidhar Jha,J )