IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.9987 of 2011 Sakal Paswan, son of Ramlal Paswan, resident of village-Hussaini, P.S. Dumariaghat, District-East Champaran at Motihari…. …..Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar…… …Opposite party …………… For the Petitioner : Dr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate For the State : Dr. Ajit Kumar, A.P.P. ……………….. 3 10.08.2011 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 Sections 394 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner’s prayer for bail had earlier been rejected twice. Firstly, vide order dated 23.12.2009 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.36341 of 2009, as contained in Annexure 1, and thereafter, again vide order dated 21.07.2010 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.21232 of 2010. However, vide subsequent order dated 21.07.2010 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.21232 of 2010, the bail application of the petitioner had been rejected at that stage and a direction was given to the trial court to take every step for expeditious 2 disposal of the trial, preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy the order. I have perused the report of the trial court. It appears therefrom that only three witnesses out of sixteen could be examined till the submission of the report. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his bail application had been rejected on earlier occasion on the ground that two persons have identified him during the Test Identification Parade. However, it is alleged that those persons were neither informant nor, according to the First Information Report, were they present at the time of occurrence. The two persons, namely, Ravi Singh and Neeraj Singh have allegedly identified the petitioner, but they have stated before the police that they had subsequently gone along with certain other persons nearby a damaged bridge fromwhere some of the culprits were trying to flee away. They further stated that there was scuffle amongst them and in course of which they received injuries. However, 3 learned counsel submits that admittedly they were not the eye-witnesses of the occurrence as has been alleged in the First Information Report. That apart, no FIR or any case has been lodged by them against the petitioner for the injuries inflicted upon them. Thus, it is contended that identification by those persons is meaningless. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that Ravi Singh and Neeraj Singh had identified the petitioner during the Test Identification Parade, however, he could not demonstrate from the records of the case that they were the eye-witnesses at the time of occurrence as per the First Information Report. That apart, vide order dated 21.07.2010 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 21232 of 2010, a direction was given to the trial court to conclude the trial within six months and the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari was also directed to take every step so that the prosecution witnesses are produced for examination on the date(s) fixed by the trial court. However, the 4 trial could not be completed even after expiry of more than a year. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s antecedent is also clean and he is in custody since 27.03.2008. Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the petitioner, SAKAL PASWAN, 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 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari in connection with S. Tr. No.88 of 2009 (arising out of Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 117 of 2007), with a further condition that one of the bailors of the petitioner must be the close relative of his family member, who will file affidavit before the court below giving full genealogy showing his or her relationship with the petitioner. Further, the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during the course of the trial in the court below. If the petitioner fails to remain present on 5 two consecutive dates during the course of the trial without any reasonable cause being shown, the court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. It is made clear that the trial court will proceed with and dispose of the trial in accordance with law on its own merit without being prejudiced by any observation or finding recorded by this Court in this order. Sanjay-II ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)