IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27037 of 2009 DURGA NAND CHOUPAL @ DURGA ND CHOUPAL Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 13.10.2009 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Petitioner has been made accused in connection with Rahika P.S. Case No. 510 of 2008 registered under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The name of the petitioner has transpired during the course of investigation on the basis of statement made by the co-accused. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no role in the entire occurrence which according to him was given effect by the main accused Dhumsur Pandit. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the statement of one Lalu Pandit which has been put on record vide Annexure-2 to the application and submits that it was Dhumsur Pandit who committed the alleged crime. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said statement further shows that both Lalu Pandit and this petitioner had tried to restrain the said Dhumsur Pandit from carrying 2 out of his criminal motive. It is further stated that merely on suspicion and on the statement of the co-accused, the petitioner is in custody since 9.10.2008. It is further stated that the petitioner has no criminal history. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, Durga Nand Choupal @ Durga Nd, Choupal be enlarged 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, Madhubani in connection with Rahika P.S. Case No.510 of 2008 subject to the following conditions:-. (a) One of the bailors would be close relative of the petitioner who would also certify the clean antecedent of the petitioner as also specify about his relationship with the present petitioner. (b) The petitioner would Co-operate in the trial and would receive his police papers without delay. (c) The petitioner would attend the Court below on each and every date fixed in 3 the case and failure on the part of the petitioner to attend the Court on two consecutive dates would confer the liberty on the Court below to initiate proceeding and take him in custody. (d) If the petitioner gets involved in any further criminal case in that event also the learned Court below would be at liberty to cancel his bail and take him in custody. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)