IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21547 of 2009 LAL BIHARI KANU son of late Sukhdeo Kanu, resident of village-Panduka, P.S.-Chutia, Dist.-Rohtas at Sasaram. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 7.10.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case arising out of Nauhatta P.S. Case No.16 of 2001 for the offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307, 427, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act. Omnibus allegation against the petitioner and others is of forming unlawful assembly and making assault on the police personnel with an intention of looting the police station and in that process some cross firing took place between the accused persons and the police personnel which went on approximately for three hours. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is general averment against the accused persons and some of whom have been granted bail by this court who are named in para-9 of the bail application. It is also contended that name of the petitioner has transpired in the present proceeding by reason of confessional statement made by Sukhari Kahar and Chandan Baitha, who have been granted bail by the court below and this court respectively. It is submitted that the petitioner was in custody since 2005 in Mirzapur Jail and this is the reason he did not present himself in the present case. The petitioner is in custody since 4.3.2009. It is stated that the petitioner is involved himself in two other case also. In one of the case - 2 - he has been acquitted and in another case he is on bail. Having regard to the circumstance where from persons who have named this petitioner have been granted bail either by the court below or this court, let this petitioner, namely Lal Bihari Kanu be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with S.T. No.112 of 2009 arising out of Nauhatta P.S.Case No.16 of 2001 subject to the condition that one of the bailors would be his family member and would also file an affidavit in the court below regarding providing information to the court below, if the petitioner is involved in any further criminal act. The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the trial of the case and would be attending the court on each and every date fixed in the matter. In either of the two situations i.e. if the petitioner fails to attend the court on the date fixed on two consecutive dates and/or information is furnished by the bailor regarding involvement of the petitioner in any further criminal case, the trial court would be at liberty to institute a proceeding for taking him into custody. Md.S. (Jyoti Saran,J.)