IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24510 of 2009 BAIJNATH MANJHI, SON OF SRI CHARITAR MANJHI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOHABBATPUR, P.S. SHERGHATTY, DISTRICT GAYA VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 05.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The case is under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner is not named in the first information report. He has been implicated in this case only on the basis of his confessional statement and in the confessional statement he has disclosed that he is involved in two more cases of theft in which he is on bail. Case diary was called for and after going through the same, learned counsel for the State submits that in the confessional statement of co-accused, name of petitioner is there. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not been put on test identification parade and there is no recovery from his possession and he is in custody since 11.11.2006. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this application is allowed. Let petitioner (Baijnath Manjhi) be enlarged on bail - 2 - on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati, District Gaya in Imamganj P.S. Case No.32/2006 with conditions as laid down in sub-section (3) of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as may be applicable and also that one of the bailors shall be a close relation of the petitioner. In case of breach of any of the conditions at any stage to the satisfaction of the concerned court below, it shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner and take steps for his arrest. B.T (J.N. Singh, J.)