IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34566 of 2009 MANOJ SAH, Son of Late Paltu Sah, resident of Village- Benipatti, Police Station- Benipatti, District- Madhubani......................Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR...........................................Opposite Party. ----------- 3. 09.12.2009. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is an accused in connection with Bisfi P. S. Case No. 68 of 2006 for offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Substance of allegation as set out in the First Information Report is that 10-15 unknown criminals together with four named accused committed dacoity in the house of the informant and took away the valuables. The name of the petitioner has transpired by the reason of a confessional statement made by co-accused Upendra Mukhiya and Ram Briksha Mahato. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and that neither any recovery has been made from his possession or from his house nor he had been put on T. I. Parade by the police. He further submits that his name has cropped-up only on the basis of statement made by co-accused persons and who have been granted bail by this Court. It is submitted that whereas Upendra Mukhiya has been granted bail in Cr. Misc. No. 20938 of 2007 vide order passed on 10.05.2007 2 and Ram Briksha Mahato has been granted bail in Cr.Misc. No. 13581 of 2007 vide order passed on 04.04.2007. He submits that the present case is on same and similar footing. Having regard to the facts and circumstances set forth, let petitioner Manoj Sah be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Madhubani in connection with Bisfi P.S. Case No. 68 of 2006 subject to the following conditions:- (A) One of the bailors would be the relative of the petitioner. (B) The petitioner would be attending the court below on each and every date fixed and the failure on his part to attend the court below on two consecutive dates without any reasonable explanation to the satisfaction of the court below would confer liberty on the court below to initiate proceedings for cancellation of his bail bonds and for taking him into custody. (C) In case, the petitioner is found to be involved in any further criminal case even in that event also it would 3 be the duty on the part of the relative of the petitioner to inform the court below of his involvement in another case whereupon the court below would be at liberty to cancel his bail bond and to take into custody. U.K. (Jyoti Saran,J)