IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42770 of 2009 MUKESH PASWAN SON OF LATE CHETNARAYAN PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PANCHRUKHI, P.S. KHIJARSARAI, DISTRICT-GAYA. -PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR.. –OPP.PARTY _____ For the Petitioner : M/s R.B. Mahto & Ajoy For the State : Mr. B.P. Singh, APP 4 10.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is accused in a case registered under sections 302, 201 and 34 of the India Penal code and Sections 25(1-B) A, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act in Paraiya P.S. Case no. 14 of 2009 dated 13.1.2009. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has only been named in the first information report on the basis of suspicion and due to the fact that he happens to be the brother-in-law of the co-accused, Dayanand Paswan. Allegation is that there had been some altercation with the deceased one year back and Dayanand Paswan and the petitioner had allegedly threatened the deceased some times 2 back with dire consequences. Learned counsel submits that no evidence could be collected during the course of investigation which could directly connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. Only on the basis of statement made by certain persons that petitioner used to keep the country made pistol with him and the petitioner was seen roaming with the said country made pistol some times back which allegedly later on had been utilized in the murder, he has been implicated in this case. It is informed that charge sheet has already been submitted and petitioner is stated to be in custody since 14.1.2009. It is submitted that the bail application of the co-accused Dayanand Paswan had been rejected by a Bench of this Court on the basis that there was un-explained reasons for his absence from his place of work after the date of occurrence which created strong suspicion against him. However, it is submitted that the petitioner was apprehended on the very next day of the date of occurrence and, thus, his case is distinguishable from co-accused Dayanand Paswan in that regard. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the petitioner to be released on bail on his 3 furnishing bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, in Paraiya P.S. Case no. 14 of 2009. One of the bailers must be his close relative. Further, in course of trial, the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date. If he remains absent on two consecutive dates then the Court Concerned shall be at liberty to cancel his bail bonds. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) AAhmad