IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7334 of 2010 PUTPUT SINGH @ PARAMJIT SINGH @ PARAMJIT CHAUHAN SON OF PARWEEN KR. SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, A.P.P. ---------- 3. 9.4.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 386, 342, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and co- accused hired the services of the informant, who was a car driver on the false pretext on going to see the ailing relative but on the way they attempted to kidnap him and loot his vehicle, but the police arrived and apprehended the accused persons including the present petitioner. However, the Officer Incharge of Ghoswari Police Station, Barh was of the view that the place of occurrence was within the district of Purnea and, therefore, forwarded the first information report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, but he surprisingly did not forward the petitioner along with a copy of the first information report. An explanation was called for from the Chief Judicial Magistrate as to how no enquiry was made about the accused, who should have mandatorily accompanied the first information report but the whereabouts of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate are not known as per the report of the Sessions Judge, Purnea who is still trying to trace out the Officer concerned. - 2 - The submission of the Counsel is that had the petitioner been forwarded in the present case on the date of occurrence along with the first information report he would have completed four years in custody by now, but he has been remanded in the present case only on 10.12.2009. The further submission of the Counsel is that in fact the petitioner had never been apprehended as alleged since had he been arrested he would have been forwarded with the copy of the first information report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea. In view of such, let the petitioner above named, who is in custody since 10.12.2009, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnia in K. Hat P.S.case No.170 of 1996, subject to the conditions (i) that one of the bailors shall be local since the petitioner is resident of Saharsa and other will be a close relative of the petitioner who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioner, (ii) that the bailor shall also state on affidavit that he will inform the court concerned if the petitioner is implicated in any other case of similar nature after his release in the present case and thereafter the court below will be at liberty to initiate the proceeding for cancellation of bail on the ground of misuse and (iii) that the petitioner will give an undertaking that he will receive the police papers on the given date and be present on date fixed for charge and if he fails to do so on two given dates and delays the - 3 - trial in any manner, his bail will be liable to be cancelled for reasons of misuse. In view of nature of allegations against the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Superintendent of Police, Purnea within fifteen days of his release with a copy of this order and thereafter every two weeks for the next nine months. The conduct of the petitioner will be kept under watch in this period by the S.P. concerned and if it is found wanting in any manner a report shall be made to the court concerned by him to initiate a proceeding for cancellation of bail for reasons of misuse of bail. After reporting to the Superintendent of Police, a certificate will be filed by the petitioner before the court concerned. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )