IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.34325 of 2009 BADAL PASWAN, SON OF KARI PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE – SINDHEYON, P.S. BEJHA, DISTRICT – MADHUBANI, AT PRESENT R/O VILLAGE – BEHSARI, P.S. FUL PARAS, DIST. – MADHUBANI ……………………………………………………...……… PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………………….……….. OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Kumar Praveen, Advocate. For the State:- Mr. R.P.S. Singh, A.P.P. ----------- 5. 23.12.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner files a supplementary affidavit. Let the same be kept on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is not named in the first information report and though he is in custody since 01.07.2009, he has not been put to any T.I. Parade. So far the allegation of recovery of a Mobile phone and a D.V.D. is concerned, it is submitted, that the stolen Mobile phone is stated to be Nokia 1600 Model whereas the mobile phone which has been recovered from the petitioner is Nokia 9300 and, similarly, the stolen D.V.D., as per the first information report, is of BELTEC Company whereas the D.V.D. 2 allegedly seized from the house of the petitioner is of WESTON Company. It is further submitted that several co-accused persons including Arvind Thakur, Harishchandra Prasad Singh and Baijnath Raut have already been granted bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.05.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 6655/2009 along with analogous two cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a certified copy of the aforesaid order dated 01.05.2009. Let the same be kept on record. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the petitioner, namely, Badal Paswan to be released on bail on his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in connection with Samastipur (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 617/2008, subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be either the family member or close relative of the petitioner, who shall swear an affidavit before the concerned court giving complete genealogy showing his relationship with the petitioner. It is also made clear that, if the petitioner, 3 after his release in this case, again involves himself in a criminal case of similar nature, it would be open for the concerned court to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )