IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.39529 of 2009 CHANSU RAI @ CHANSU KUMAR, S/o Raj Bahadur Rai, R/o Bishanpur, P.S. Akilpur, Distt. – Patna ……. ……………………………………………..Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ……….…... Opposite Party. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Y.C. Verma, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary, Advocate. For the State:- Mr. R.P.S. Singh, A.P.P. ---------- 2. 13.11.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. Petitioner has been made accused in a case registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in the first information report. Though the informant claimed that he could identify the miscreants, the petitioner has not been put to T.I. Parade despite the fact that he is in custody since 19.06.2009.It has also been stated that there is no recovery of any incriminating article from the possession of the petitioner. In the cases which were earlier lodged against the petitioner, the petitioner has been granted bail. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, namely, Chansu Rai @ 2 Chansu Kumar is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the A.C.J.M., Danapur (Patna) in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 165/09, subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be the family member or close relative of the petitioner. The bailor must swear an affidavit before the court below giving detailed genealogy to show as to how he is related with the petitioner. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )