IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5626 of 2010 AMARESH THAKUR . Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 3. 15.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The defence of the petitioner in a Police case under Section 392 of the Penal Code is grant of bail to named co-accused in Cr. Misc. No. 1405 of 2010 and that the petitioner is in custody from the same date i.e., 3.12.2008. Counsel for the State points out the antecedents from the impugned order which is acknowledged by the petitioner of three cases more under Section 395 of the Penal Code inter alia, let the petitioner above named be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 30,000/- (thirty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in connection with Karja P.S. Case No. 137/08. Both the sureties must be his mother and father respectively whose photographs and proof of residence shall be appended to the bail bonds. The Court below through the local police shall have the bail 2 bonds verified and only thereafter shall proceed to enlarge the petitioner on bail. If the petitioner is involved in any criminal prosecution during the pendency of the present case, it shall be construed as a misuse of privilege of bail liable to cancellation of his bail bonds by the Court below itself. If the petitioner absent himself on any date directed by the Court below to appear or is not properly represented on any date, the Court below shall be at liberty to deal with the sureties also, if circumstances so warrant so that the trial be expedited. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)