IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42189 of 2009 MAHANTH UPENDRA DAS @ BIPIN CHAUDHARY, son of Anant Shankar Choudhary, Resident of Madurapur, P.S. Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur …….. Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR … Opposite Party ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Kumar -3, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar - 2, A.P.P. 4 03.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State and perused the report with regard to stage of the trial. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for offences punishable under Sections 302, 379, 120/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has been named in the first information report only on the basis of suspicion. It is clearly stated therein that one Ramdhani Rai had fired upon the deceased Krishndeo Rai and since there was a dispute going on between the deceased and the petitioner, it has been alleged in the first information report, that petitioner was instrumental in getting him killed. Learned counsel further submits that it is a most unfortunate case in which though the petitioner 2 is in custody since 4.3.2003 still trial could not be concluded. Learned counsel for the State submits that antecedent of petitioner is not clean and he is involved in several cases. However, it is accepted that petitioner has not been claimed to be the assailant in the first information report. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and specially the long period of incarceration of the petitioner, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The petitioner, MAHANTH UPENDRA DAS @ BIPIN CHAUDHARY, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. II, Samastipur in connection with S.T. NO. 129 of 2005 arising out of Khanpur P.S. Case No. 114 of 2002, with a further condition that one of the bailors of the petitioner must be a close relative or family member of the petitioner, who shall file affidavit before the concerned court giving complete 3 genealogy to show his or her relationship with the petitioner. Further, the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during the course of trial. If the petitioner fails to remain present on two consecutive dates without any reasonable explanation then the court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds of the petitioner. Since the case is of the year 2002, the trial court is directed to take steps for its expeditious disposal. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)