IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39619 of 2009 Bhula Rai @ Dinesh Rai, son of Nawalok Rai @ Ram Balak Rai, resident of Village- Deochand, P.S. Raghopur, District- Vaishali…………………………………………..Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar …………………………..Opposite Party. ----------- 4. 04. 03. 2010. Heard Mr. Suraj Narayan Prasad Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Upendra Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution case, there was some previous enmity between the informant and co-accused Murari Rai. The petitioner is alleged to have pushed down the deceased by kicking in his legs and accused Jai Mangal Rai is alleged to have caught hold of legs of the deceased and thereafter, co-accused Murari Rai is alleged to have killed the deceased by slitting his neck. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of investigation, it has transpired that co- accused Murari Rai alone is responsible for killing the deceased. During the course of trial with respect to co-accused Murari Rai, witnesses have not attributed any specific role against this petitioner in commission of crime in question. It is further submitted that Murari Rai was on inimical terms with the informant and the petitioner has not participated in the 2 crime in question. He has been implicated in the present case simply because of the fact that petitioner happens to be a Gotia of co-accused Murari Rai and these facts have been mentioned in the Case Diary also. Learned State Counsel has pointed out that ,though, the case was instituted in the year 2003, but the petitioner has been absconding since then and could be apprehended by the Police in the month of August, 2009 and was remanded to judicial custody on 06. 08. 2009. However, Learned A.P.P. has also not pointed out any specific role assigned to the petitioner in the commission of crime. Be that as it may, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, namely, Bhula Rai @ Dinesh Rai is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, in connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No. 87 of 2003, subject to the conditions (a) that one of the bailors must be Government Servant or close family member of the petitioner, who will file an affidavit in the court below showing his/her relationship with the petitioner, (b) if the petitioner is found involved in same and similar nature of cases in future, then in that case the informant/prosecution shall be at liberty to file a petition for cancellation of the bail of the petitioner and if such a petition is filed, the court below 3 would be obliged to dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned and (c) the petitioner shall make regular pairvi in the court below in the present case either by appearing himself in person or through representation by his lawyer on each and every dates, and if on two consecutive dates petitioner fails to make pairvi, then the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner. m.p. (Birendra Prasad Verma,J.)