IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25914 of 2010 1.NARENDRA RAI @ UDHARI RAI, S/O LATE SURESH RAI 2.SETU RAI @ SATU RAI, S/O LALIT RAI @ LALIT MOHAN RAI, BOTH R/O VILLAGE-BARUNA, P.S.BIKRAMGANJ, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. --PETITIONERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR --OPP.PARTY 2 25.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. After some arguments learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the application with respect to petitioner no.1, Narendra Rai @ Udhari Rai, Permission is accorded. The application on behalf of petitioner no.1 is dismissed as withdrawn. So far petitioner no.2, Setu Rai @ Satu Rai is concerned, he carries general allegation and the case appears to be squarely covered under the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah V. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 531. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner no.2, in the event of arrest or surrender within four weeks from today, is directed to be enlarged on bail on 2 furnishing bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, Rohtas, in Bikramganj P.S. Case no. 94 of 2010, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with additional condition that the petitioner no.2 shall remain present on each and every date before the court below at least for one year or till disposal of the case, whichever is earlier. If the petitioner no.2 fails to remain present on two consecutive dates without any reasonable explanation the privilege granted shall be deemed to be cancelled. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) AAhmad