IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2291 of 2010 ARUN SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03 05.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The defence on behalf of the petitioner in a police case under Sections 394 and 411 of the Penal Code is that the F.I.R. is against three to four unknown. The only material is the alleged recovery of a paper from the motor-cycle and on which his name figures in an affidavit. Learned counsel for the State points out that the petitioner has antecedents of two more cases. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Jehanabad in connection with Arwal P.S. Case No. 96 of 2009. Both the sureties must be his mother and father respectively whose photographs and proof of residence shall be appended to the bail bonds. The same shall be verified for its correctness through the local Police only whereafter it shall be 2 accepted. The petitioner is bound to be properly represented on each date in the trial including his physical appearance on the dates that the court below shall fix. In the event of a single absence either physical or lack of proper representation on other dates, the court below shall be at liberty to deal with him appropriately in law or if circumstances warrant against the sureties, so that the trial is not hampered by reason of his absence. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)