IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39789 of 2009 SHEOJI SINGH, son of Mangal Singh, resident of village Aruhi, P.S. Kargahar, District Rohtas at Sasaram Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 18.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer for bail of the petitioner for offence u/ss 379/34 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code as also other allied offences thereof is on the ground that the alleged recovery of a mobile of the informant cannot make the petitioner liable, inasmuch as the said mobile was itself handed over by the informant as a security for return of the amount of loan taken by the informant from the petitioner and in fact it was the informant who had voluntarily handed over his mobile to the petitioner when the issue was settled in a Panchayati. It would be difficult to accept the aforementioned defence of the petitioner for the present but then if the others also named in the F.I.R. who have snatched money in the same transaction from the informant have already been released on bail on 2 account of no recovery, the petitioner also deserves to be granted bail but only after completing his custody for a period of five months. In other words, the petitioner, who is in jail since 11.8.2009, would be released on bail on or after 11th January, 2010 only after verification of criminal antecedent of the petitioner. With the aforementioned condition, the abovenamed petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in Kargahar P.S.Case No. 119/2008, in which one of the bailors will be either parents or the wife of the petitioner. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall remain present in course of trial and his absence on two consecutive dates will make him liable for cancellation of his bail. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/ 3