IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46032 of 2009 CHANDAN MANDAL . Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 2. 6.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Renewing the prayer for bail in a Police case under Section 392 of the Penal Code, learned counsel submits that the witnesses who allegedly named him as an accused in a train dacoity under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C. denied, having named him in his deposition during trial. The manner in which the prosecution appears to be conducting the trial, leaves much to be desired. The Court conducting the trial in such serious offences also has a duty to unravel the truth. Let the petitioner, abovenamed be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 30,000(thirty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri S.D. Dwivedi, Railway Judicial Magistrate, Kiul in connection with G.R. No. 74 of 2009 arising out of G.R.P. Kiul P.S. Case No. 37 of 2009. Both the sureties must be his mother and father respectively. The photograph and proof of residence of the bailors shall be appended to the bail bonds. The Court below shall have the same factually verified through the Police 2 before finally accepting the bail bonds. The petitioner is required to report at the Barahiya Police Station every alternative Monday at 10.30 A.M. till the conclusion of the trial. In the event of his refusal to appear at the Police Station on even a single day or to appear in the trial, hindering the progress of the trial, the prosecution shall be at full liberty to move the Court below for appropriate orders when the present order granting bail shall not be any hindrance. If the petitioner is accused in any fresh case during trial, it shall be a clear case of misuse of the privilege of bail, rendering it liable to cancellation. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)