IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26263 of 2010 AWADHESH KUMAR @ SUNNI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02/ 04.08.2010 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Didarganj P.S. Case No. 72 of 2009 for offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The substance of allegation against the petitioner and other named accused is of robbing the informant and his brother and depriving them of the motorcycle and some cash amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been involved in the present case on the basis of the statement made by a co-accused and even in absence of any recovery nor being put on T.I. Parade he has remained in custody. He further, with reference to an order passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 3092 of 2010 dated 17.03.2010, submits that one Bhim Yadav who was alleged of having sold the motorcycle in question to one Joga Yadav, has been granted bail by a Bench of this Court. He further submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for alleged offence since 26.07.2009. Taking into consideration the circumstances and 2 the submissions of learned counsel, let the petitioner Awadhesh Kumar @ Sunni be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Ashutosh Kumar, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patna City in connection with Didarganj P.S. Case No. 72 of 2009 subject to the conditions, that the mother of this petitioner would stand as one of the bailors and who would be under a duty to inform the court below in case this petitioner, after his release in the present case, is named or found involved in any further case of similar nature and whereupon the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of this petitioner on grounds of misuse. The petitioner would also ensure his representation before the court below on each and every date fixed in the case and the failure on his part to ensure his representation on two such consecutive dates without reasonable explanation to the satisfaction of the court concerned would confer liberty to the court concerned to initiate proceedings for cancellation of his bail bond and for taking him into custody. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)