IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35587 of 2010 NAND KUMAR NANDA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02/ 29.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned P.P. for the State. Earlier petitioner was granted privilege of bail by this court on 28.9.1992 but it is said that he misused the privilege of the aforesaid bail for a very long period i.e. more than 18 years. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, as a matter of fact, the case of the petitioner was committed to the court of sessions on 23.10.1986 in his absence and subsequently, he filed regular bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge and his bail petition was tagged with Sessions Trial no.488/1987 but the aforesaid fact was never informed by the counsel to the petitioner and the petitioner was under the impression that his case was pending in the court of ACJM, Danapur, It is also pointed out by him that after getting bail from this court, the petitioner furnished bail bond before the court of ACJM, Danapur and he was under the impression that cognizance in this case has not been taken and the case is pending for taking cognizance and commitment and that is why he did not appear before the concerned court as a result of which his bail bond was cancelled. No doubt, it is case of long misuse of privilege of bail but considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I think it proper to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with Sigouri (Paliganj) 2 P.S. Case no. 70 of 1983 on furnishing bail bond of Rs 50,000-/ (fifty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Danapur in Sessions Trial no. 488 of 1987 subject to the condition that one of the sureties shall be family member of the petitioner and that surety shall produce relevant papers in respect of his property before the concerned court. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J))