IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40268 of 2010 DEVENDRA MANJHI, son of Nanipat Manjhi, resident of village-Jafarpur, P.S. Belsand, District-Sitamarhi Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 09.11.2010 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Petitioner is in custody in connection with Belsand P.S. Case No.30 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the F.I.R. submits that the allegation is against an armed mob of 500 to 600 persons, who entered the gas agency of the informant and committed dacoity of Rs. 1,72,000/-. He submits that though the informant claims to have recognized the criminals who had committed dacoity in his gas agency, yet the petitioner who was arrested on the basis of confessional statement made by co- accused Shiv Tahal Sahni and Baidnath Sah on 4.8.2010 was never put on T.I. Parade. Learned counsel thus submits that despite 2 the said position and even in absence of any recovery of any incriminating articles from the possession of the petitioner, he continues to remain in custody since 04.06.2010. Taking into consideration the circumstances and the submissions of the learned counsel, let the petitioner, Devendra Manjhi, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in connection with Belsand P.S. Case No.30 of 2010 subject to the following conditions:- 1. That the father of the petitioner would stand as one of the bailors and who would be under a duty to inform the court below in case this petitioner after his release in the present case is named or is found involved in any further case of similar nature and whereupon the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner and take him into custody on grounds of misuse. 2. that the petitioner would ensure his representation before the Court below on 3 each and very date fixed in the case and the failure on the part of the petitioner to ensure his representation on two consecutive dates fixed without reasonable explanation to the satisfaction of the trial Court, would confer liberty on the Court concerned to initiate proceeding for cancellation of his bail bonds and to take him into custody. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)