IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25948 of 2009 BHIM MAHTO son of Late Deo Narayan Mahto, R/O village-Bijwar, P.s.Palasi, Distt-Araria. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 8.10.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is an accused in a case arising out of Sikty P.S.Case No.135 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The bail application of this petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 6.5.2008 passed in Cr.Misc.No.16398 of 2008. By the same order, the bail application of another accused Yugal Mahto was also rejected vide order passed in Cr.Misc.No.6981 of 2008. It is contended that the petitioner was arrested on suspicion and neither any incriminating material nor any looted article has been recovered from either his personal possession or from his house. It is contended that even so called recovery of looted gun on his confessional statement, is not entirely correct. It is further contended that other co-accused Yugal Mahto, whose earlier bail application had been rejected along with the bail application of 2 this petitioner, has been subsequently granted bail by this court by order dated 19.5.2009. It is contended that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has been roped in the present transaction on mere suspicion. It is further contended that the petitioner is in custody since 16.11.2007 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I allow this application and direct that the petitioner, named above, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/ (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria in connection with Sikty P.S.Case No.135 of 2007, subject to the following conditions: (a) one of the bailor would be the blood relative of the petitioner, who would also file an affidavit regarding his elationship with the petitioner, (b) Said bailor would also undertake to inform the court below in case the petitioner gets involved in any other criminal case, (c) This petitioner would attend the court on each and every date fixed in the case and 3 ahk failure on his part to attend the court on two consecutive dates would confer liberty upon the court below to institute a proceeding for cancellation of his bail bond and to take appropriate steps for his arrest, (d) The court below would also be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner and to take him into custody, if he is found to be involved in any further criminal case. (Jyoti Saran,J.)