IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20363 of 2010 RAMESH SADA, Son of late Raghuni Sada, resident of village Anchara Lalpur, P.S. Balrampur, District Katihar ….. Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR … Opposite Party ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar, A.P.P. ---- 3 04.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for offences punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner’s prayer for bail had earlier been rejected by this Court on 17.11.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 36335 of 2009, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure 1. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months. I have perused the report of the concerned trial court. According to which only progress is that the charges have been framed against the accused persons and case is pending for evidence. It is submitted that the petitioner is not named 2 in the first information report, which has been lodged against 20-30 unknown persons. However, though the informant claimed that he could identify the miscreants but the petitioner has not been put to any T.I. parade. The petitioner is stated to be in custody since 20.5.2009. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner as well as co-accused Naimuddin was arrested along with looted articles in West Bengal and in that connection Karan Dighi (Dalkola, West Bengal) P.S. Case No. 94 of 2009 has been registered. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the aforesaid case bail has been granted to the petitioner. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, the above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 4, Kishanganj in connection with Pothia (Paharkatta) P.S. Case No. 38 of 2009 (S.T. No. 190 of 2010), with a further condition that one of the bailors of the petitioner 3 must be a close relative or family member of the petitioner, who shall file affidavit before the concerned court giving complete genealogy to show his or her relationship with the petitioner. If, after his release in this case, the petitioner is again found implicated in similar nature of cases, then the concerned court would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. Further, the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during the course of trial. If the petitioner fails to remain present on two consecutive dates without any reasonable explanation then the court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds of the petitioner. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)