IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19662 of 2010 HARIHAR MISHRA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 29.6.2010 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 Dhanha P.S.Case No.20 of 2006 for the offence punishable under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and that the petitioner has simply been roped in the present case on mere suspicion. He further with reference to statement of allegation as set out in the first information report, submits that it was co-accused Ram Pravesh Sah who had taken the deceased, son of the informant, along with him. He submits that as per the allegation made by the informant, the said Ram Pravesh Sah along with other accused persons, including the present petitioner, forced the deceased to drink liquor and whereafter committed his murder by pressing his neck by means of stick but perusal of the post 2 mortem report does not support the said statement as no trace of liquor was found in the stomach of the deceased. He, with reference to the statement made by the witnesses in the case diary, submits that most of the witnesses have stated that it was a case of suicide. He further submits that the petitioner is aged about 76 years and which can be found in the remand order placed at Annexure-2 of the bail application. Taking into consideration the circumstances and the submission of the learned counsel, let the petitioner Harihar Mishra be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bagaha, West Champaran in connection with Dhanaha P.S.Case No.20 of 2006, subject to the conditions (a) that the petitioner would accept the police papers and would be present in the court on the date fixed for charge and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates fixed and delays the trial in any manner, the court concerned shall be at liberty to initiate proceeding for cancellation of his bail bond, (b) that the petitioner would ensure his 3 representation at the stage of trial on each and every date fixed and the failure on his part to ensure his representation on two consecutive dates fixed, would entitle the trial court to initiate proceeding for cancellation of his bail bond and for taking him into custody. (Jyoti Saran,J.) ahk