IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.42044 OF 2009 UDAY KUMAR, SON OF LATE RAMDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAMPAPUR, POLICE STATION BAKHTIYAPUR, DISTRICT PATNA VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 10.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The case is under sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 25(1) b (a), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act. The case is of robbery of passengers of a train. Petitioner is not named in the first information report. It is said that on protest by the passengers, accused persons fled away from the train but later on, on confidential information, petitioner was arrested. A confessional statement of the petitioner was recorded in the case diary on the basis of which charge sheet has been submitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, father of the petitioner had filed a petition before the authorities informing them about the involvement of villagers in train robbery on account of which he was done to death. Due to such enmity, petitioner has been roped in the case. He has not been put on test identification parade. He also submits that petitioner has no - 2 - criminal antecedent and he is a college-going student. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this application is allowed. Let petitioner (Uday Kumar) be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Railway Judicial Magistrate, Patna in connection with Bakhtiyarpur Rail P.S. Case No.67 of 2009 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.)