IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23190 of 2008 NIRMAL KUMAR SINHA @ BITTU … … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioner: None For the State:Shri Dashrath Mehta, APP ----------- 7. 23.12.2008 None appears on calls for the petitioner. I have heard Shri Dashrath Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The renewal prayer is on account of pendency of trial and also because on an earlier occasion the Court had dismissed the prayer for bail of the petitioner at that stage as may appear from the words ‘for the present.’ The case is under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner is in custody since 25.9.2006, as may appear from paragraph 8 of the petition, i.e., since over two years. The trial has not been even made over to a Magistrate for trial and what the Chief judicial Magistrate has reported to this Court by his letter No. 77 dated 14.7.2008 is that in spite of taking 2 cognizance the case is not being committed to the court of Sessions. I fail to understand as to who Section 365 of the Penal Code could be tried by the court of Sessions when the Schedule of the Cr. P.C. indicates that it is triable by a Magistrate of the Ist Class. This could indicate that how we are running our institution and how negligent could be about the provision of law. The offence under Section 365 of the Penal Code is triable by a Magistrate of the Ist Class, as indicated above, and the petitioner has remained in custody for over two years. Considering his period of custody and the earlier order of this Court, let the petitioner Nirmal Kumar Sinha alias Bittu be released on his furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/-( ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Phulwarisharif P.S.Case No. 239 of 2006 on the following conditions: 1. That the petitioner shall religiously attend the proceedings in the court on all date without any 3 break and if at all he appears to skip the proceeding the reason for that must be shown to the court to its satisfaction. 2. Any attempt by the petitioner on tampering of evidence or intimidation to the witness, if shown to the satisfaction of the court, shall be sufficient for the lower court to assume that this order had not been passed by this Court and the court shall take steps for committing the petitioner to custody. 3. One of the sureties shall be either his parents, if alive or his very close relative. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)