IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31098 of 2009 AKHILESH KUMAR @ AKHILESH CHAUDHARY Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 14.09.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner who has been shown to be a contractor in the FIR, has approached this Court seeking bail in a case instituted under sections 409,420,467,468 and 120-B IPC. The allegation precisely is that the Mukhiya got certain scheme/works executed through private contractors like the petitioner. The work, as per the guidelines, was to be executed by the Government agency only. Several contractors have thus been made accused including the petitioner. A supplementary affidavit has been filed. In paragraph 3 thereof, the following facts have been averred. “That, here it is relevant to bring on record that the similarly situated co-accused and other co- accused namely Ashish Kumar vide Cri.misc. No.13683 of 2009 order dated 24.04.2009, Vijay Chandra Prasad vide Cri.Misc.No.24011 of 2009 order dated 09.09.2009 Shami Ahmad vide Cri.Misc. No.19405 of 2009 order dated 09.09.2009 and Ram Swaroop Chaudhary vide Cri.Misc.No.19136 of 2009 order dated 09.09.2009 have been granted Anticipatory bail, by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mandhata Singh.” 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the letter of the Collector bearing no.567 dated 24.05.2008, states that the authorities have directed for realization of the amount from the Mukhiya by invoking the provisions of Public Demand Recovery Act. The petitioner seems to be in custody since 8.4.2009. In the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner abovenamed be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of CJM, Gaya in connection with Khizersarai P.S. Case No. 51/2008 (G.R.No.1292/08) subject to the condition that the petitioner shall appear on each date fixed in trial. In case of default in such appearance, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail bonds. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )