IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14162 of 2010 1. SUBHASH SHARMA, SON OF MAHADEO SHARMA 2. SANTOSH SHARMA, SON OF MAHENDRA SHARMA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 06/05/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners seek bail in a case instituted for the offence under Section 393 of the Indian Penal Code. Considering that the only allegation against the petitioners is that they attempted to take away the motorcycle of the Informant but did not succeed in doing so and were nabbed there and then for which they have remained in custody since 14.2.2010 and have no criminal antecedents, let the petitioners above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, in Arer P.S. Case No. 11 of 2010, G.R. No. 241 of 2010 subject to the following conditions: (i)That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioners who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioners. The bailor will undertake to furnish information to the court about any change in address of the petitioners. (ii)That the affidavit shall clearly state that the petitioners are not accused in any other case and if they are, they shall not be released on bail. (iii)That the bailor shall also state on affidavit that he will inform the court - 2 - concerned if the petitioners are implicated in any other case of similar nature after their release in the present case and thereafter the court below will be at liberty to initiate the proceeding for cancellation of bail on the ground of misuse. (iv)That the petitioners will give an undertaking that they will receive the police papers on the given date and be present on date fixed for charge and if they fail to do so on two given dates and delay the trial in any manner, their bail will be liable to be cancelled for reasons of misuse. (v)That the petitioners will be well represented on each date and if they fail to do so on two consecutive dates, their bail will be liable to be cancelled. It has been submitted in the impugned order that paragraph 31 of the case diary contains the criminal antecedents of the petitioners but that is an error of record since the said paragraph contains the antecedents of co-accused Sunil Thakur and not the petitioners which fact will be verified by the Magistrate before releasing the petitioner on bail. S.Ali (Anjana Prakash, J.)