IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.6193 of 2010 MAHANAND RAI @ BARAK RAI @ BARKU, son of Seuki Rai, Resident of village – Kanahauli, P.S. Bihta, District Patna ………. Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ….. Opposite Party ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Satish Chandra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nirbhay Kr. Singh, A.P.P. For the informant : Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Singh, Advocate ------ 3 06.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the informant. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 448, 341, 323, 307, 504/34of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that earlier the case was registered under Sections 307 and other allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code, however, upon the subsequent death of the injured, Section 302 IPC has been added. According to the allegation as set up in the first information report, the petitioner along with two other persons had assaulted the daughter of the informant. Later on daughter of the informant succumbed to the injury. - 2 - It is submitted that it is not clear from the allegation made in the first information report as actually who had assaulted the deceased. The allegation of assault is general in nature. It is submitted that one of the co-accused Sushila Devi had been granted bail vide Annexure 2. However, the contention raised on behalf of the informant in the foresaid case was (as would be apparent from the order itself) that the Sushila Devi was the main assailant of the deceased. Petitioner is stated to be in custody since 1.8.2009. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that all the three persons had assaulted the daughter of the informant who died after 4 days in Patna Medical College and Hospital and Sushila Devi had been granted bail on the ground that she is a lady. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, MAHANAND RAI @ BARAK RAI @ BARKU, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, in connection with - 3 - Bihta P.S. Case No. 207 of 2009, with a further condition that one of the bailors of the petitioner must be a close relative or family member of the petitioner, who shall file affidavit before the concerned court giving complete genealogy to show his or her relationship with the petitioner. Further the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during the course of trial. If the petitioner fails to remain present on two consecutive dates without any reasonable explanation then the court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds of the petitioner. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)