IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35818 of 2009 PANCHU RAVIDAS @ CHANARIK, son of Late Mumgeshwar Ravidas, resident of village Salaiya Tand, P.S. Dumariya, District Gaya …. Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ….. Opposite Party ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Gautam Shah, Advocate For the State : Mr. Uma Shankar Pd. Singh, A.P.P. 5 10.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 186, 353, 307, 504, 380, 386, of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of Cr. L.A. Act. As per the allegation as set up in the first information report, on 20th May, 2004 a group of extremists indiscriminately fired on village Suki and looted away the licensed arms of the villagers and there was exchange of fire with police also. Some persons had got injury also. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been named in the first information report and though the 2 occurrence is of the year 2004, after several years he has been remanded in this case. It is further contended that co-accused Ram Vilash Das @ Ram Vilash Jee as well as Barhamdeo Paswan @ Ram Pravesh Paswan @ Gautam JI @ Arun Jee had already been granted bail by order dated 29.4.2008 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 12459 of 2008 and order dated 10.11.2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 27662 of 2008 respectively. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, the petitioner, PANCHU RAVIDAS @ CHANARIK, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati in connection with Dumariya P.S. Case No. 11 of 2004, with a further condition that one of the bailors of the petitioner must be a close relative or family member of the petitioner, who shall file affidavit before the concerned court giving complete genealogy to show his or her relationship with the petitioner. 3 If, after his release in this case, the petitioner is again found implicated in similar nature of cases, then the concerned court would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)