IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32658 of 2009 Daud Miyan, S/o Nawab Miyan, Resident of Village Kulharia, P.S. Parbatta, District Khagaria. ----------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ------ Opp. Party ----------- 3 7.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner, facing prosecution for an offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, seeks bail from this Court on the ground that in the entire Case Diary, there is no evidence to connect him in the said occurrence and that even the paragraphs referred by the learned sessions judge in the impugned order rejecting his prayer for bail cannot not in any way lead to a certain conclusion as with regard to any role played by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and as such his implication is only on the basis of framework of the police or in the subsequent statement of the informant based on the alleged identification of the group of persons 2 including the petitioner by their voice. In this case, Case Diary having been called for, counsel for the State on its perusal could not point out to any specific paragraph which could have shown direct role of the petitioner. He, however, has tried to refer to those very paragraphs which are either by way of information of the spy or in the statement of one Riyaz who has only gone to make guess that it might be the petitioner also known as ‘Munshi’ in the village who has participated because the persons were repeating the word ‘Munshi-Munshi’. In the opinion of this Court, in the light of the aforementioned materials, the petitioner who has got no criminal antecedent cannot be, for the present, linked with the case and therefore, this Court would grant bail to the petitioner, namely, Daud Miyan on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria at Khagria in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case No. 101 of 2008. It is, however, made clear that one the 3 bailors must be either of the parents or wife of the petitioner. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall remain physically present in course of trial and his absence for two consecutive dates in course of such trial will make him liable for cancellation of his present bail. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)