IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36036 of 2009 RAM BALAK RAI S/O LATE HARIHAR RAI R/V - SHERMUKKA, P.S- MANER, DISTT- PATNA ….. Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 03.11.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State as also counsel for the informant. An allegation of gutting the shop of the informant on fire for an offence u/s 436 I.P.C. by the petitioner and his henchmen is the sum and substance of the first information report but then the informant did not claim to be an eye witness and his entire allegation was based on some information given to him by the villagers including the persons named in the FIR as his witness. Counsel for the informant has read the statement of such of the witnesses from the photo-copy of the case-diary but none of them would inspire confidence on the point of the petitioner being either seen in burning the shop of the informant or even being a party to it. Statement of such witnesses is only to the effect that they had heard the petitioner making a plan to put the shop of the informant on fire or the petitioner and 2 his supporters were seen to be running away from the place of occurrence after the fire can definitely by itself be not clincher to be the occurrence being committed in the manner alleged against the petitioner. Counsel for the informant would however, submit that the petitioner had a chequered past and is accused in four criminal cases. Counsel for the petitioner in this regard immediately points out that all the cases have been filed either by the informant or by his family members. It appears from the FIR itself that both the parties are at inimical terms and therefore even if the petitioner has been made accused in few criminal cases at the instance of informant or his family members, that by itself would not stand in the way of the petitioner for being released on bail. Considering all these aspects, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner namely, Ram Balak Rai, on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of ACJM, Danapur in connection with Maner P. S. Case 3 No. 123 of 2009/ G. R. No. 828/09 subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be either parents or wife of the petitioner and that the petitioner shall remain present in course of trial regularly and punctually and his absence on two consecutive dates itself during trial shall entail the consequence of cancellation of his bail. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)