IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39502 of 2008 BINDESHWAR RAM Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 9.1.2009 Heard Sri Ram Swarup Prasad, Advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The case was registered some times in the year 1983 for dacoity and the FIR did not contain any name. The court does not know as to what was the basis for showing the petitioner and another accused absconders while submitting chargesheet but this is evidently clear that there was no material of identification or recovery of anything against the petitioner. In spite of that the learned Sessions Judge has mentioned that the case was disposed of under Section 299 Cr.P.C. If one could peruse the Section 299 Cr.P.C. one could simply find that two things are required to be proved:- (1)That the accused has absconded. (2)That there was no prospect of accused being arrested. That could not be the end in itself of proving of above two things. What the court is required to do is to record the evidence of - 2 - witnesses as pointed out above. There was no material indicating the complicity of the petitioner in any manner and still the petitioner was shown absconder in the chargesheet and that appears weighing heavily for the learned trial Judge to negate the prayer for bail. This court is not happy in the manner as the prayer for bail in such a case has been dismissed by the learned Judge. Let the above named petitioner be released from custody on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.500/-(five hundred)without any surety to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.No.1, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in S.Tr.No.118A of 1993(Harnaut P.S.Case No.138 of 1983). B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )