IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2270 of 2010 JITENDRA RAI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03 05.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The defence on behalf of the petitioner under Section 392 of the Penal Code is that the F.I.R. is against four unknown when the motor- cycle is alleged to have been recovered from the house of co-accused, who made no statement about the petitioner. He is stated to have antecedent of four cases including under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. Considering his custody since 29.5.2009, let the petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 40,000/- (Forty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Saran at Chapra in connection with Derni P.S. Case No. 05 of 2009. Both the sureties must be his mother and father respectively whose photographs and proof of residence shall be appended to the bail bonds. The same shall be verified for its correctness through the local Police only whereafter it shall be accepted. 2 The petitioner is bound to be properly represented on each dates in the trial including his physical appearance on the dates that the court below shall fix. In the event of a single absence either physical or lack of proper representation, on other dates, the court below shall be at liberty to deal with him appropriately in law or if circumstances warrant against the sureties, so that the trial is not hampered by his absence. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)