IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15220 of 2010 BACHCHU MAHTO, SON OF KEDAR MAHTO Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 01.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted that the petitioner is not named in the First Information Report nor in the further statement of the Informant but has been named in the 3rd statement of the Informant that the petitioner himself disclosed his name on the query of the Informant, but, there is no explanation as to why this fact was not given out at an early instance. Considering the same as also that the petitioner is in custody since 10.6.2009, let the petitioner above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura, in Ariari P.S. Case No. 119 of 2002 (G.R. No. 490 of 2002) subject to the following conditions: (i)That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioner and the other shall be the father of the petitioner. The bailor will undertake to furnish information to the court about any change 2 in address of the petitioner. (ii)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 the ground of misuse. (iii)That the petitioner will be well represented on each date and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail will be liable to be cancelled. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)