IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.907 of 2010 MITHILESH MAHTO @ MITHILESH PRASAD VERMA, son of Ramvilash Mahto Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 10.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On 12.1.1991, the master of the informant was kidnapped by unknown miscreants. The petitioner’s name transpired more than three months’ later through a vague speculation that the petitioner could have been involved in the present occurrence. However, there is no cogent material to support the same and even the victim when he returned ten days later did not disclose any names. Under the circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, who is in custody since 25.5.2009, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC III), Aurangabad, in connection with Sessions Trial No.188 of 2009/143 of 2009 arising out of Kutumba P.S. case no.02 of 1991, subject to the conditions (i)that one of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner, who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioner,(ii)that the bailor shall also state on affidavit that he will inform the court concerned if the petitioner is implicated in any other case of similar nature after his 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 - 2 - of misuse, (iii) that the petitioner will give an undertaking that he will receive the police papers on the given date and be present on date fixed for charge and if he fails to do so on two given dates and delays the trial in any manner, his bail will be liable to be cancelled for reasons of misuse, (iv) that the petitioner will be well represented on each date and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail will be liable to be cancelled. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial in view of the fact that the case is of the year 1991. JA/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)