IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37553 of 2010 INO YADAV @ INDRADEO YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 20.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the state. Petitioner seeks his bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 860 of 2010 arising out of Balia P.S. Case No. 76 of 2005 registered under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. Although the petitioner is named in the FIR but the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C. No.-IV), Begusarai reveals that sole eye witness of the alleged occurrence has not taken the name of this petitioner in her statement recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Furthermore, I find that co-accused, Rakesh Yadav has already been granted privilege of bail by another Bench of this court. No doubt, the aforesaid co-accused was granted bail by the Bench of this court considering his period of detention in jail custody but as per prosecution case itself, the eye witness of the alleged occurrence has not named the petitioner. So, in my view, the case of this petitioner is on better footing to that of co-accused, Rakesh Yadav. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions of the parties, the petitioner, 2 namely, Ino Yadav @ Indradeo Yadav is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Sessions Trial No. 860 of 2010 arising out of Balia P.S. Case No. 76 of 2005 to the satisfaction of Sri Dina Nath Pandey, Additional District & Sessions Judge (F.T.C. No.-IV), Begusarai with condition that the petitioner shall attend the trial court in person on each and every date for the period of nine months and if he fails to dos so without any valid reason, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. AKV/- ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)