IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9505 of 2010 KALIYA @ RANJIT RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 18.5.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The defence under Sections 307, 324, 120B, 427/34 of the Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section ¾ of the Explosive Substance Act is that the F.I.R. is against unknown. The only material is that the petitioner was allegedly seen on the road, a public place prior to the occurrence. Counsel for the State points out that a fruit vendor has identified the petitioner as loitering along with others near the place of occurrence minutes before the police van came up. He has an antecedent of more than four cases under serious sections as mentioned in Para-115 of the case diary. Considering that the F.I.R. is against unknown, there is no direct attribution of any assault by the petitioner, let the petitioner above named be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 40,000/- (forty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the A.C.J.M., Danapur (Patna) in connection with Danapur P.S. Case 2 No. 183/09. Both the sureties must be his mother and father respectively whose photographs and proof of residence shall be appended to the bail bonds and which shall be verified through the local police before final acceptance, till which date the petitioner is directed to remain physically present in the Court. He is required to be appropriately represented on each date including his physical appearance on the dates that the Court below so directs failing which the Court below shall be at liberty to deal with him appropriately notwithstanding the present order so that the trial be not hampered, but even with regard to the sureties if the circumstances so warrant. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)