IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.561 of 2010 PAPPU SINGH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 3. 22.02.2010 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The defence on behalf of the petitioner in a Police case under Sections 395, 397 and 412 of the Penal Code is that the allegations are against unknown persons when the impugned order of rejection from the materials ion the case diary notices only alleged confessional statement of co-accused inadmissible in evidence. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 40,000/- (Forty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of CJM East Champaran at Motihari in Sugauli PS Case No. 99 of 2009. Both the sureties must be his father and mother respectively. Their photograph and proof of residence must be appended to the bail bonds. In the event of default in appearance by the petitioner the court below shall be at liberty to proceed against the sureties also. If the petitioner is involved in any criminal prosecution during pendency of the present trial it would be a clear case of abuse of the privilege of bail liable to be cancelled by the court below. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)