IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17189 of 2010 BINOD MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR 3. 29.6.2010 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Naokothi P.S.Case No.15 of 2009 for the offence punishable under sections 384 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Substance of allegation against the petitioner of demanding Rangadari of Rs.100000/- from the informant by means of mobile phone giving threatening from jail. Learned counsel submits that the allegation as set out in the first information report against the petitioner of threatening the informant by his mobile phone and demanding rangdari from jail is not correct. He submits that the petitioner has been in custody for the last seven years in connection with another case in which he has been convicted but was granted bail at the stage of admission of appeal. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was remanded in the present case on - 2 - 13.8.2009 on the basis of the allegation set out in the first information report. He further submits that the other accused persons of the case have been granted bail by this Court. Taking into consideration the circumstances and the submission of the learned counsel, let the petitioner Binod Mahto be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in connection with Naokothi P.S.Case No.15 of 2009, subject to the following conditions (a) that the father of the petitioner would stand as one of the bailor and who would be under a duty to inform the court below in case the petitioner is named or gets involved in any further case of similar nature after his release and whereupon the court concerned shall cancel the bail bond of the petitioner on grounds of misuse (b) that the petitioner would receive the police papers and would be present on the date fixed for charge and would not try to delay the trial, (c) that the petitioner would be attending the proceedings before the court below on each and every date fixed in the case and failure on the part of the - 3 - petitioner to attend the court below on two consecutive dates fixed in the case without reasonable explanation to the satisfaction of the trial court, would entitle the court concerned to initiate proceedings for cancellation of the bail bond of the petitioner and for taking him into custody. (Jyoti Saran,J.) ahk