IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45638 of 2009 1. NANDU SAO, SON OF MUNI LAL SAO. 2. MODI SINGH, SON OF LATE ANIRUDH SINGH. BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PARSATHUA, P.S. PARSATHUA, DISTRICT-ROHTAS…...PETITIONERS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR…………..OPPOSITE PARTY. ------- For the Petitioners : M/s. Syed Alamdar Hussain and Syed Asghar Najmi, Advocates. For the State : Mr.Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, A.P.P. -------- 4. 11.3.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State and also perused the antecedent report of the petitioners, kept on record. The petitioners are accused in a case registered under Sections 47(a) and 47(f) of the Bihar Excise Act. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner no.1, Nandu Sao, is the owner of the ‘Thela’ and the petitioner no.2, Modi Singh, is an employee. It has also been submitted that the antecedent of the petitioner no.2 is clean, however, in the antecedent report, it is stated that the petitioner no.1 has been found involved in - 2 - similar nature of cases earlier also. However, learned counsel submits that no particular of any case has been given. Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the petitioners, namely, (1) Nandu Sao and (2) Modi Singh, are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, in connection with Excise Case No.32/09, with a further condition that one of the bailors of the petitioners must be the close relative or his family member, who will file affidavit before the court below giving full genealogy showing his or her relationship with the petitioners. Further, after their release in this case, if the petitioners are again found to be involved in criminal case of similar nature, the court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. Further, the petitioners shall remain present before the court below during the course of the trial. If they remain absent on two subsequent occasions without any sufficient cause being shown, the - 3 - court concerned again would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)