IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40934 of 2009 NEELKAMAL MANDAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 2.4.2010 Heard Mr. Hare Krishna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Dashrath Mehta ,. learned A.P.P. for the State. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bihariganj P.S. case no. 71 of 2006 dated 6.12.2006 registered under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is not named in the F I R as an accused, though two other persons have been named as accused. He further submits that there has been no recovery of any incriminating article from the house of the petitioner and not even a single witness or any co-accused has specifically named him as one of the accused in the present case. Merely on certain suspicion he has been arrayed in the category of accused by the police. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and points out that now charge sheet has been submitted in the present case against the petitioner also. However, after going through the case diary he has not pointed out any legal material to connect the petitioner with the offence in question. He has fairly conceded that neither any witness nor any co-accused had named the petitioner as accused for commission of crime in question. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner in the event of his arrest or surrender in the court below within four weeks from today be enlarged on bail on - 2 - furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M, Madhepura, in the above noted case subject to the conditions laid down under section 43(2) Cr.P.C. and subject to further conditions: (a) That one of the bailors must be Govt. servant or close family member of the petitioner who will file an affidavit in the court below showing his/her relationship with the petitioner. (b) If the petitioner is found involved in same and similar nature of cases in future, then in that case the informant/prosecution shall be at liberty to file a petition for cancellation of the bail of the petitioner, and if such a petition is filed, the court below would be obliged to dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. (c) The petitioner shall make regular pairvi in the court below in the prese4nt case either by appearing himself in person or through representation by his lawyer on each and every dates, and if on two consecutive dates petitioner fails to make pairvi, then the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner. (Birendra Prasad Verma,J) M.Rahman