IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.51424 of 2008 GUDDU MANJHI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- Cr.Misc. No.8828 of 2009 TIMAL RAI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 01.04.2009 Cr. Misc. No. 41424 of 2008 filed by Guddu Manjhi and Cr. Misc. No. 8828 of 2009 preferred by Timal Rai have been taken up together for hearing as they arise out of the same Basantpur P.S. Case No. 116 of 2006 registered under sections 395, 397 and 412 IPC and are being disposed of by this common order. Both the petitioners though not named in the FIR were arrayed as accused when certain witnesses in course of their examination under section 161 Cr.P.C. chanced to name these petitioners as participants in the crime. The common submissions on behalf of the petitioners of both these cases is that they have been implicated in this case as accused only on the basis of the submissions of three witnesses available in paragraph nos. 20, 21 and 22 of the case diary. It has further been submitted that the petitioners are in custody for nearly an year. It has further been submitted that the three witnesses whose statement appear in paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 are hearsay witnesses as they, not being eye witnesses to the occurrence, had merely stated that they had learnt about the participation of the 2 petitioner without disclosing the source therefor. Opposing the prayer for bail the learned A.P.P. sought to submit that petitioner Timal Rai happens to be a “habitual offender” and as many as six cases for various offences are pending against him as would be apparent from the paragraph 58 of the case diary. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Timal Rai that he is on bail in all six cases. Opposing the prayer of bail by petitioner Guddu Manjhi , the learned A.P.P. sought to submit that he is an accused in Rivilganj P.S. Case No. 18 of 2007 registered under section 414 IPC. Having given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels I am of the opinion that the pendency of a single case against petitioner Guddu Manjhi does not amount to he being categorized as being “habitual offender”. So far as petitioner Timal Rai is concerned there are as many as six cases pending against him apart from the present one. The fact of his having been released on bail does not take away the credibility of his being a “habitual offender”. In the facts and circumstances of the case the prayer for bail on behalf of the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 8828 of 2009 Timal Rai is rejected and Guddu Manjhi the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 51424 of 2008 is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of 3 the like amount to the satisfaction of Sri S.D. Dwivedi, J.M. 1st Class, Siwan in connection with Basantpur P.S. Case No 116 of 2006. Timal Rai, petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 8828 of 2009, will be at liberty to move for bail after six months. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)