IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.16101 of 2010 1. UPENDRA PASWAN son of Jatan Paswan & 2. Uday Manjhi son of Laxman Bhuia Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4/ 23.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners seek bail in a case instituted for the offence under section 395 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted that from the facts of the case it appears that the object of the accused persons was to assault and not to commit dacoity and as regards the petitioner no.1, there is only one other case pending against him, whereas, there are two cases pending against the petitioner no.2. In view of such, let the petitioner no.1 Upendra Paswan be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Ashuthosh Khetan, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Aurangabad, in connection with Barun P.S. Case No. 193 of 2009, subject to the conditions (i) That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner, who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioner and the other bailor shall be the father of the petitioner. The bailors will undertake to furnish information to the court about any change in the address of the petitioner, (ii)That the bailors shall also state on affidavit that they will inform the court concerned if the petitioner is implicated in any other case of similar nature after his release in the present case and thereafter the court - 2 - below will be at liberty to initiate the proceeding for cancellation of bail on the ground of misuse, (iii)That the petitioner will give an undertaking that he will receive the police papers on the given date and be present on date fixed for charge and if he fails to do so on two given dates and delays the trial in any manner, his bail will be liable to be cancelled for reasons of misuse, and (iv)That the petitioner will be well represented on each date and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail will be liable to be cancelled. Prayer for bail of petitioner no.2, Uday Manjhi, is rejected. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner no.2 to renew his prayer after framing of charge. It is made clear that the petitioner’s case shall not be bifurcated either for commitment or for framing of charge for the purpose of this order. JA/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)