IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.27877 of 2011 Md. Hanif son Md. Taiyab Ali Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 2/ 25.08.2011 Supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner is being filed. Let it be kept with the record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was refused bail by order dated 24.09.2010 vide Cr. Misc. No.22156 of 2010 on the ground that number of witnesses had supported the fact that the petitioner had attempted to commit rape upon the informant. The prayer for bail has been renewed on the ground that both the informant and her father have been examined in Trial but have not supported their case. Considering the aforesaid as also that the petitioner is in custody since 31.03.2010, 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 or any other surety to be fixed by the court below to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd, Katihar, in connection with Sessions Trial No.279 of 2010, subject to the 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 another bailor shall be the wife of the petitioner. The bailors will undertake to furnish information to the court about any change in the address of the petitioner, (ii) That the bailors shall also state on 2 affidavit that they 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, and (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. The Officer-in-charge, Barari (Semapur) P.S. within the Katihar District is directed to keep watch on the petitioner’s activity since it has been conceded by the petitioner that he is accused in two other cases of similar nature. Let this order be communicated to the concerned Officer-in-charge through the Superintendent of Police, Katihar, through FAX at the cost of the State. JA/- (Anjana Prakash,J.)