IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.884 of 2011 BHIM PRASAD S/O SRI RAMJEE PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 11.05.2011 The petitioner was refused bail by an order dated 7.4.2010 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 5758/2010 since his own sons had given incriminating statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It has been submitted that during trial the two sons have been examined and they have merely stated on the fact of recording of their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which documents have been marked as Exhibits. The submission is that since the contents therein have not been narrated by them, the Exhibits have no probative value and the same cannot be looked in evidence and, therefore, now it is a case of no evidence against the petitioner. Considering the same, let the petitioner above named, 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 learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Patna City in connection with Sessions Trial No. 1063/09 arising 2 out of Chowk P.S. Case No. 14/09, subject to the conditions, (i) That one of the bailors 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 bailors shall also state on affidavit that they 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 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 Sessions Judge, Patna is directed to call for records of the present trial and peruse the same and take such action as he may deem necessary in the light of the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. Fahad. ( Anjana Prakash, J.)