IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16504 of 2010 SUNIL PANDEY, Son of late Janki Pandey, R/o village Dhangai, P.S. Dhangain, District Bhojpur …… Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR … Opposite Party ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Dr. Indiwar Kumari, A.P.P. 3 14.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for offences punishable under Sections 366A and 372 and of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner’s prayer for bail had earlier been rejected at that stage on 18.3.2010 by order as contained in Annexure 1 It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that during course of trial the victim girl has been examined as a witness and she has not supported the prosecution case so far with regard to this petitioner and has clearly stated in paragraph no. 7 of her examination as a witness that this accused petitioner was not involved in the occurrence. In support of his aforesaid submission learned counsel has appended 2 copy of the deposition. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 12.7.2009 and in view of the aforesaid deposition of the main witness, the entire prosecution as against the petitioner falls flat. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the petitioner is named in the first information report also and the victim girl has named in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also. However, she could not deny that the girl has specifically asserted in her examination as a witness that the petitioner was not involved in the occurrence. I have also perused the report of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram and it is manifest therefrom that charges were framed in the trial on 2.1.2010. However, only two witnesses could be examined in two days and the petitioner is in custody for about last one year. It has also been stated that the petitioner has clean antecedent. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, the petitioner, SUNIL PANDEY, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of 3 the like amount each to the satisfaction of the 1st Additional Sessins Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 377/2009 arising out of Sasaram(M) P.S. Case No. 538 of 2009, with a further condition that one of the bailors of the petitioner must be a close relative or family member of the petitioner, who shall file affidavit before the concerned court giving complete genealogy to show his or her relationship with the petitioner. Further, the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during the course of trial. If the petitioner fails to remain present on two consecutive dates without any reasonable explanation then the court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds of the petitioner. It is made clear that the court concerned shall proceed with trail and conclude the same in accordance with law on its own merit without being prejudiced with any finding or observation made in this order. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)