IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25042 of 2010 KAYUM ANSARI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03/ 07.10.2010 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Deoriya P.S. Case No. 65 of 2009 for offence punishable under Sections 461, 379 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner and the co-accused have been charged with committing theft in the shop of the informant and of causing death of a labour who was found dead in front of the shop. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a plain reading of allegations set out in the F.I.R. shows that the petitioner has been involved merely on circumstantial evidence. He submits that in absence of any evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence and in absence of any recovery of any incriminating article from his personal possession from his house, his involvement in the present case, is not justified. He further submits that the petitioner has a clean antecedent and has remained in custody since 12.4.2010. Taking into consideration the circumstances and the submission of learned counsel, let the petitioner Kayum Ansari be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 2 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, West, Muzaffarpur in connection with Deoriya P.S. Case No. 65 of 2009 subject to the following conditions; namely:- (a) One of the close relative of the petitioner would stand as one of the bailor and who shall indicate his relationship with the petitioner by filing an affidavit before the court below to this effect; (b) The said bailor shall also be under a duty to inform the court below in case this petitioner after his release in the present case is named or found involved in any further case of similar nature and upon which the court below shall cancel the bail bond of the petitioner on grounds of misuse; (c) The petitioner shall co-operate in the trial of the case and shall accept the police papers without causing unnecessary delay; (d) The petitioner shall also ensure his representation before the court below on each and every date fixed and the failure on his part to ensure his representation on two consecutive dates fixed in the case without any reasonable explanation to the satisfaction of the court below would confer liberty to the court concerned to initiate proceedings for cancellation of his bail bond and for taking him into custody. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)