IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42089 of 2010 HARENDRA KUMAR son of Puryadhan Sahu, resident of village Deokul, Tola-Chhapra Vishwanath, P.S. Chakiya, District- East Champaran. ...........Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR .....Opposite Party. ----------- 2 26.11.2010 Heard the parties. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a criminal prosecution registered under sections 302/394 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein he has been summoned in exercise of powers under section 319 Cr. P.C. by the learned trial court. It is submitted that in the First Information Report vide Annexure-1 registered under section 302/394 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner is not named as accused. However, during the course of investigation, some suspicion was raised against several persons including the petitioner and one co-accused Md. Usman was arrested. On close of investigation, police submitted charge sheet vide annexure 2 against co-accused, Mr. Usman, but so far this petitioner is concerned, he was not sent up for trial as no sufficient evidence was found by the I.O. against him. The charge sheet submitted by the police was accepted and cognizance was taken against Md. Usman, who was put on trial. During the course of trial of Md. Usman, some witnesses were examined where the petitioner appears to have been named by some witnesses as accused. In that view of the matter in exercise of power under section 319 Cr. P.C. he was summoned to face trial and therefore, the present application. Learned counsel for the State has strongly opposed the 2 prayer for anticipatory bail but has not disputed the aforesaid factual position. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the event of arrest or surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today, the above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional District Judge-II, East Champaran, Motihari in connection with S. Tr. No. 112 of 2006 arising out of Chakiya P.S. case no. 151 of 2005, subject to further conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. and subject to conditions: (a) That one of the bailors must be a government servant (b) The other bailor should be a close family member or relation of the petitioner, who will file an affidavit in the court below showing his/her relationship with the petitioner, (c) If the petitioner is found involved in same and similar nature of cases in future, then in that cases the informant/prosecution shall be at liberty to file a petition for cancellation of the bail of the petitioner, and if such a petition is filed, the court below would be obliged to dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned., (d) The petitioner shall make regular pairvi in the court below in the present case either by appearing himself in person or through representation by his lawyer on each and every date, and if on two consecutive dates petitioner fails to make pairvi, then the court below shall at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner. M.Rahman ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J ) 3