IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33366 of 2008 SATYENDRA SHARMA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 6.1.2009 Heard Mr. Shivendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dashrath Mehta, learned A.P.P. The case is under section 386 etc. of the Indian Penal Code, section 27 of the Arms Act and sections 3/4 of the Explosives Substance Act. The allegation is that for not getting rangdari from some of the shopkeepers, the petitioner and other accused came armed with deadly weapons like pistols and bombs and caused the shopkeepers to pull down their shutters. They exploded bombs and fired indiscriminately. The contention is that the two named accused persons Neeraj and Chhote have been admitted to bail, as may appear from the order passed in Miscellaneous Petition no.13771 of 2008. I have called for a report about the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and the case diary contains the same in paragraph-42 and it is indicated that the petitioner had five other cases besides the present one, out of which three are for the same offence as in the present case. As regards the two other accused persons, I find that accused Chhote had two cases registered against him whereas accused Neeraj has none. Considering the number of cases which were registered against the present petitioner, prayer for bail of the petitioner is dismissed. - 2 - However, if the trial is not concluded within a further period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the present order, the court below itself shall release the petitioner on bail on execution of bond to its own satisfaction. But that order of bail shall be subject to the following condition that the petitioner shall appear before the Officer-in-Charge of Karpi police station twice in a month preferably at an interval of fortnight and appearance of the petitioner shall be recorded in the daily diary of the police station. If the petitioner is found indulging in same or any other offence which could directly or indirectly violate the peace and tranquillity in the society, in that case the court below shall assume that this Court had not passed the present order and shall take steps for cancelling the bond and committing the petitioner to the custody. sudip ( Dharnidhar Jha,J )