IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12777 of 2010 BHIM CHAUDHARY Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 15.6.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make correction in the prayer portion of the bail application. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is an accused in a case arising from Patliputra P.S.Case No.19 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 326,504/34 of the Indian Penal code and section 27 of the Arms act. Lateron, sections 302, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code were added. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the first information report. He submits that the name of the petitioner has transpired during the course of the investigation on the confessional statement made by one Sunil Baansphore, who himself has been released on bail vide order dated 5.5.2009 passed in Cr.Misc.No.9829 of 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on two orders of this court placed at Annexures-3 and 3/A, submits that the case of the petitioner stands on same and similar footing as direct allegation of assault 2 leading to the death of the husband of the informant has been attributed to Tipu and Md. Sajjad. It is submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent. Having regard to the submissions aforesaid, let petitioner Bhim Choudhary 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 Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Patna in connection with Sessions Trial No.1585 of 2008 arising out of Patliputra P.S.Case No.19 of 2008 subject to the following conditions, (i) the petitioner would file an affidavit regarding his clean antecedent and if upon verification the same is found false, the court below would initiate proceeding for cancellation of his bail bond and for taking him into custody, (ii) the petitioner would accept the police papers without causing any further delay and would be attending the trial court on each and every date fixed in the case. The failure on part of the petitioner in attending the trial court on two consecutive dates fixed without 3 reasonable explanation to the satisfaction of the trial court, would confer liberty on the court concerned to initiate proceedings for cancellation of his bail bond and for taking him into custody. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)