IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35324 of 2010 JAI PRAKASH MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 12.10.2010. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Goh P.s.Case No.49 of o2010 for the offences punishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that involvement of the petitioner has been made merely on the statement made by one co-accused Mahendra Yadav alias Birendra Yadav. He further submits that even in absence of any recovery from the conscious possession of the petitioner and the petitioner not having been put on test identification parade, he has remained in custody since 16.4.2010. It is stated that except of one case instituted in the year 2003 giving rise to Goh P.S.Case No.55 of 2003, the petitioner is not involved in any other case. Learned counsel, with reference to the order dated 3.9.2010 passed in 2 Cr.Misc.No.30252 of 2010 placed at Annexure-2, submits that the case of the petitioner is also on same and similar footing. Having regard to the circumstances and submissions of the learned counsel, let the petitioner Jai Prakash Mahto be released on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Daudnagar, Aurangabad in connection with Goh P.S.Case No.49 of 2010, subject to the conditions (a) that either the father of the petitioner or his wife shall stand as one of the bailor and who shall also file an affidavit stating that he/she shall inform the court below in case this petitioner after his release in the present case is named or is found involved in any further case of similar nature and whereupon the court below shall cancel the bail bond of the petitioner on grounds of misuse, (b) that the petitioner shall ensure his representation before the court below on each and every date fixed and on 3 failure on the part of the petitioner to ensure his representation on two consecutive dates, would grant liberty to the court below to initiate proceedings for cancellation of his bail bond and for taking him into custody. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J)