IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36597 of 2009 DILIP YADAV S/O RAM SHARAN YADAV R/O VILLAGE ALAMPUR, P.S. BARH, DISTT.-PATNA ….. Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 15.12.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the State. The petitioner facing prosecution for offence under Sections 302, 201/34 of the I.P.C. has his defence at least for the purpose of bail that even if the belated FIR filed after 10 days of first part of the occurrence is accepted, the petitioner would still remain to be in the zone of suspicion by way of last seen with the deceased. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner would then seek bail on the ground that there is no corroboration of the circumstance of last seen and therefore that by itself would not be sufficient even for conviction much less for denial of bail to the petitioner. From the reading of the first information report it would be found that the son of the informant was missing from 11.7.2008 and the informant knew the petitioner to be the person who had taken 2 away his son inasmuch as he claims that even on 14th when he met the petitioner and made enquiry, the petitioner did not give any satisfactory reply about the missing son of the informant and in fact run away from the scene. In such view of the matter the delay of six days from 14th would by itself be a circumstance to find dent in the prosecution case. That apart, co-accused having similar allegation of involvement including Alakh Yadav, Devendra Yadav and Mahendra Yadav have been also directed to be released on bail by this Court under orders dated 17.2.2009, 18.5.2009 and 9.9.2009 respectively. This Court had also called for a report of criminal antecedent from which it transpires that there is only one more criminal case against the petitioner of the year 2005 for offence under Section 380/511 of the Indian Penal Code which is still pending against him. The trial court has also reported that nothing beyond framing of charge has been done till today and infact no witness has been examined till date. Considering all these aspects, this court would direct for release of the 3 petitioner namely Dilip Yadav on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Addl. Session Judge, III, Barh in connection with S. Tr. No. 225/2009 arising out of Barh P. S. Case No. 182 of 2008, subject to a condition that one of the bailors must be a close family member of the petitioner. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall remain present in course of trial and his absence for two consecutive dates will make him liable for cancellation of his bail. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)