IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7220 of 2010 GHOORA YADAV @ RADHESHYAM YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 09.07.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is languishing in jail since 29.09.2008 in a case registered under Sections 384, 386, 387/34 of the I.P.C. It is alleged that one Kedar Yadav came and demanded daily use articles and cash of Rs. 10,000/- from the informant’s grocery shop and when Kedar Yadav repeated the demand on next date he was caught by the villagers and Kedar Yadav disclosed the name of the petitioner as one members of his gang. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are six cases against him but he is on bail in all those cases including the present one. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Dashrath Mehta, submits that there is reference of four cases against the petitioner in paragraph no. 69 of the case diary. Considering the fact that the petitioner has only been named by the main accused Kedar Yadav only as his gang member 2 though in the F.I.R. there is no allegation against the petitioner that he ever visited the shop of the informant or made any demand, let the petitioner, Ghoora Yadav @ Radheshyam Yadav, 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 learned S.D.J.M., Bagaha, West Champaran, in connection with Trial No. 2102 of 2009 arising out of Bagaha P.S. Case No. 209 of 2006. However, the learned S. D. J. M. Bagaha, West Champaran, is at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner if he fails to appear on three consecutive dates and if he gets himself involved in similar type of cases in future. I am constrained to observe that in the judicial proceeding when the criminal antecedent report is called for then the respective Superintendents of Police very casually transmit the criminal antecedent report of the accused persons. The Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Bagaha, in the order sheet has mentioned that there are six cases against the petitioner and statement to that effect has been made by the petitioner 3 in the petition also whereas the Superintendent of Police, Bagaha, transmitted the report on 07.06.2010 alongwith the case diary suggesting only two cases whereas the case diary in paragraph no.69 stipulates that there are four cases against the petitioner. I think the respective Superintendent of Police should be careful in signing such type of the report before transmitting to the court. Let this order be transmitted to the Superintendent of Police, Bagaha, by fax at the cost of the office for information and needful. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)