IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41010 of 2010 SOMAI TUDDU son of Mandal Tuddu, Resident of village-Kukaran Hemai Patty, P.S.-Dhamdaha, Dist.-Purnea Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 22.12.2010. Heard Mr.Vikramdeo Singh, who was assisted by Mr.B.K.Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. This is a case of misuse of privilege of bail in a case registered for the offences under section 307 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner was earlier granted bail by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnia in the year 1996. However, after the case was committed and summonses were issued, the petitioner lost his track of the case and, as such, his bail bond was cancelled. After exhausting process under sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, finally the petitioner was declared as permanent absconder. After long delay on 15.9.2010 the petitioner was apprehended and produced before the court. In the case charges have already been framed and the case is fixed for evidence. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail , he will attend the court on each and every date before the trial court. In view of the fact that the petitioner on merit was already granted bail and undertaking is being given that the 2 petitioner will co-operate during the trial, there is no reason to deny the privilege of bail. Accordingly, Let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Addl. Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.-III), Purnea in connection with Dhamdaha P.S. Case No.158 of 1995, S.T. No.290 of 1997 with a condition that the petitioner shall remain physically present on each and every date before the trial court failing which his bail bond shall stand automatically cancelled provided that in special exigency he can remain absent on prior permission of the court below. Since the case is fixed for evidence, it is desirable to direct the court below to conclude the trial preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. However, if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the condition of appearance of the petitioner on each and every date shall automatically stand vacated. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)