IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.35494 OF 2009 RAM BHAROSH KAMAT, SON OF CHHEDI KAMAT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHULIYA, POLICE STATION LADANIYA, DISTRICT MADHUBANI VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 07.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The case is under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Later on, petitioner was charge sheeted under Section 412 of the I.P.C. also on account of recovery of the video camera from his possession. However, said video camera was said to have been seized in connection with another case, namely, Raj Nagar P.S. Case No.356 of 2008 and not in connection with this case. Therefore, charge under section 412 of the I.P.C. was not framed against petitioner. Except the said recovery in another case, no material has been mentioned by learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order to show involvement of petitioner in the crime. Petitioner is in custody since 1.5.2009. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that except for the said case, petitioner has no criminal antecedent. - 2 - Considering the above facts and circumstances, this application is allowed. Let petitioner (Ram Bharosh Kamat) be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of F.T.C. No.1, Darbhanga in S.T. No.324 of 2009 arising out of Kamtaul P.S. Case No. 38 of 2008 with conditions as laid down in sub-section (3) of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as may be applicable and also that one of the bailors shall be a close relation of the petitioner. In case of breach of any of the conditions at any stage to the satisfaction of the concerned court below, it shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner and take steps for his arrest. B.T (J.N. Singh, J.)