IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.710 of 2011 Santosh Anand Singh @ Santosh Singh @ Santosh Kumar @ Amit Kumar, son of Sri Rajendra Singh, Resident of Village Kumbhi, Police Station Cheriya Bariyarpur, District Begusarai. -------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ---- Opp. Party ----------- 2 16.03.2011 Heard Mr. Kanhaya Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by order dated 9.11.2009 in Cr.Misc. No. 32830 of 2009 with an observation that if the trial of the petitioner would not be concluded within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order, he would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. Mr. Singh, on the basis of the materials available on record, has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 15.1.2009 i.e. for more than two years and the prosecution till date has not even framed charges. He would further submit that the earlier order of this Court dated 9.11.2009 would go to show that the role of the petitioner at best 2 was one of conspirator or the abettor and such persons have been already directed to be released on bail even after rejection of the prayer for bail of the petitioner. In this context, he would refer to the order granting bail to Bidhan Chandra Rai, Uday Rai, Krishna Kumar Yadav, Babloo Singh and Lalit Yadav who had been granted bail by orders dated 5.5.2010, 10.1.2011, 2.2.2011 and 8.3.2011. Though from the impugned order, it appears that the charges against the petitioner could not be framed on account of absconding of four co-accused persons as also the petitioner being not produced from custody but, then, taking the nature of allegation into account and period of custody, this Court would direct for release of the petitioner, namely, Santosh Anand Singh @ Santosh Singh @ Santosh Kumar @ Amit Kumar on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur in connection with Sessions Trial No. 205 of 2010 arising out of Rosera P.S. Case No. 173 3 of 2008, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The two bail bonds will be furnished, one by the Government servant and the other by a close family relative. (ii) The petitioner will remain present in course of trial on each and every day and his absence even for a single day would automatically entail the consequences of cancellation of his bail. (iii) The petitioner in case is now made accused in any other criminal case, that would itself lead to cancellation of his bail. Subject to the aforementioned conditions, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)