IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41452 of 2010 SINTU KUMAR SON OF LATE SHEO BALAK CHAUHAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 24.2.2011. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is an accused in Hawai Adda P.S.Case No.130 of 2008 for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is named in the first information report as being the person last seen with the deceased who happens to be the son of the informant. The earlier prayer made on behalf of the petitioner was rejected in the light of the confession made by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the confession of the petitioner before the police is not a legal piece of evidence. He further submits that even the last seen theory is not applicable in the case of the petitioner for the reason that though he is said to have been last seen with the deceased on 5.12.2008, the first information report was instituted 5 days 2 thereafter upon recovery of the dead body on 10.12.2008. The post mortem was performed on the person of the deceased and as per the post mortem report, the death has been attributed as having occurred 2 to 3 days back. He thus submits that the petitioner has been wrongfully roped in the case. It is submitted that the petitioner, on his own, surrendered before the court below on 18.12.2008. Learned counsel, in these circumstances, prays for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner. Regard being had to the circumstances set out by the learned counsel, let the petitioner Sintu Kumar be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in connection with Hawai Adda P.S.Case No.130 of 2008, subject to the conditions that the petitioner would ensure his representation before the court below on each and every date fixed in the case and the failure on the part of the petitioner to ensure his representation on two consecutive dates without reasonable 3 explanation to the satisfaction of the court below, would entitle the court below to initiate proceedings for cancellation of the bail bonds of the petitioner and for taking him into custody ahk (Jyoti Saran, J)