IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43966 of 2010 SANTOSH KUMAR @ SANTOSH KUMAR RAI @ SANTOSH RAI SON OF JAGDISH RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 14.3.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence u/s.379 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted that when a stolen motorcycle was recovered from the Verandah of the house the present case was instituted and he has been remanded in the parent case, which is numbered as Gardanibagh P.S. case No.57 of 2009 dated 7.4.2009. Considering the same, let the petitioner above named, who is in custody since 27.7.2010, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each or any other surety to be fixed by the court concerned to the satisfaction of Smt. Maushami Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Patna in Patrakar Nagar P.S. case No.60 of 2009, subject to the conditions (i) That one of the bailor will be a close relative of the petitioner who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioner. The bailor will undertake to furnish information to the Court about any change in address of the petitioner. (ii) That the bailor shall also state - 2 - on affidavit that he will inform the court concerned if the petitioner is implicated in any other case of similar nature after his release in the present case and thereafter the court below will be at liberty to initiate the proceeding for cancellation of bail on ground of misuse, (iii) That the petitioner will give an undertaking that he will receive the police papers on the given date and be present on date fixed for charge and if he fails to do so on two given dates and delays the trial in any manner, his bail will be liable to be cancelled for reasons of misuse, (iv) That the petitioner will be well represented on each date if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail will be liable to be cancelled. The Magistrate concerned is directed to consider amalgamation of the present case with Gardanibagh P.S. case No.57 of 2009 since both the cases arise out of the same transaction in view of Section 220 Cr.P.C. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )