IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32418 of 2010 MANGAL SAH son of late Amrit Sah, residentof village/Mohalla Laheriyaganj, Ward No. 1 Ma dhubani,Town, Police Station Madhubani, District Madhubani… Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR… OPPOSITE PARTY For the Petitioner: Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Advocate For the State: Mrs. Pushpa Sinha No. 2, APP ----------- 3 15.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for offences under sections 395, 397 and 398 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner’s prayer for bail has earlier been rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2009 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 31535 of 2009, a copy of which has been appended as annexure 1 to this application. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is not named in the first information report, rather he was named by co-accused Suraj Sah, who has allegedly been identified by the informant while he was receiving treatment at a Hospital. The petitioner is stated to be in 2 custody since 02.01.2009. Learned counsel further submits that one of the grounds for refusal of the bail in the earlier proceeding was that co-accused Sikandar Sah @ Sikandar Turha, whose case is on similar footing to that of the petitioner, had been refused bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.08.2009 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 14099 of 2009. However, subsequently, co-accused Sikandar Sah @ Sikandar Turha has now been granted bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.03.2010 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8772 of 2010, a copy of which has been appended to this application as annexure 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the petitioner, MANGAL SAH, to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, in Madhubani Town P.S. Case No. 319 of 2008 with further condition that one of the bailors must be close relative or family member of the petitioner, who shall state on affidavit before the court concerned, giving complete genealogy, as to how he or she is related with the 3 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 shown by him, then the court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. It is also made clear that after his release, if the petitioner is again found involved in similar kind of offences, the court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)