IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22080 of 2009 RAJ KUMAR MUKHIA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 05 04.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the State. Sole petitioner seeks regular bail in a case instituted under Section 395 of the Penal Code. It is contended that the name of the petitioner has transpired in the present case through the confessional statement of co-accuseds Suresh Sah and Rajeshwer Mukhiya. It appears from the record that aforesaid co-accuseds, namely, Suresh Sah and Rajeshwer Mukhiya have since been released on bail by this Court. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this Court under order dated 11.09.2009 directed for filing of affidavit explaining the criminal antecedents. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in which it is stated that apart from the present case he is facing prosecution in two other matters. One being under Section 395 of the Penal Code. It is next contended that after his arrest in the present case he was made accused in Lokhi P.S. Case no. 145/96 in which he has already been released on bail. It is further highlighted that the petitioner is in custody since 11.02.2009. In the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail 2 bond of Rs. 10,000/- ( ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the S.D.J.M., Birpur, Supaul in connection with Nirmali P.S.Case no. 33/98, subject to the following conditions: (i) One of the bailors should be the own/close family member of the petitioner. (ii) No sooner the charges are framed in this case, petitioner shall appear in person before the Court below on each date fixed in the trial. In case of default in such appearance without showing any sufficient reason, the trial Court shall have liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner and secure his arrest in accordance with law. Sym/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)