IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4954 of 2009 Jamun Prasad, Son of Sri Ram Deyal Yadav, Resident of Village Khapura Bajitpur, P.S. Pipra (Sub-Division Masaudhi), Dist. Patna. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. Urmila Devi, W/o Arjun Singh, Resident of Khapura Bajitpur, P.S. Pipra, Dist. Patna. -------- Opposite Party ----------- 6 24.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Despite service of notice on the opposite party no.2, no one has appeared on her behalf. The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merits by an order dated 19.6.2008. Counsel for the petitioner, however, would submit that after the said order was passed and charges were framed on 24.6.2008 for offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, no further progress has taken place, inasmuch as, no witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution. This Court had also called for a report from the trial court as with regard to the position of the trial and in such report dated 15.4.2009 almost the same fact has been reiterated and that the trial of the petitioner has not proceeded beyond the stage 2 of framing of charges. This Court would find that one of the main idea of issuing notice to the complainant opposite party no.2 was to ensure the welfare of the minor child whose mother has died giving rise to the present occurrence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Unfortunately, the complainant informant has not responded to the said notice of the Court and therefore, this Court having found that the trial of the petitioner has not progressed even a bit, in the intervening period of more than one and a half years, this Court would direct for release of the petitioner, namely, Jamun Prasad on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge-V, Patna in connection with Sessions Trial No. 5 of 2008 arising out of Pipra P.S. Case No. 12 of 2007, on a specific condition that he would remain personally present on each and every date of the trial and his absence even for a single date, except for a bonfaide reason, would automatically lead to consequence of cancellation of his bail. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)