IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2595 of 2009 CHANDAN KUMAR AMAR @ CHANDAN KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 10.09.2009 Heard both sides. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in a case instituted under Sections 379 and 385 of Indian Penal Code. Allegation is that while the informant was going on road, he was way-laid by few accused persons including the petitioner. A sum of Rs. 2200/- was also snatched from his pocket. Learned counsel submits that earlier to this case, the father of the petitioner had lodged few cases against the present complainant/informant. It appears from Annexure-4 that the father of the petitioner and complainant were transacting business and cash amounts were being paid . It is the petitioner’s case that certain outstanding amount with the complainant was not being returned. Referring to Annexure-5 series, it is contended that on request of the S.P., Gamon India Ltd has verified that this petitioner, working with the said company as Assistant Engineer, was on duty. Having regard to all these facts, the police did not send him up for trial. In the event of arrest or surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks, let petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten 2 thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in connection with Tekari P.S. case no. 125/2008 (G.R. No. 2177/2008) subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. This order is subject to further condition that once the trial of the case is taken, the petitioner shall appear on each and every date fixed in the court below. In case of default on two consecutive occasions without any cogent/sufficient reason, the trial court shall have liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )