IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19711 of 2010 SAKAL DEO YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02/ 16.06.2010 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Sessions Trial No. 521 of 2006 / 90 of 2009 arising out of Kawakole P.S. Case No. 5 of 2005 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 324, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. This is a case of misuse of the privilege of bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never misused of privilege of bail and was regularly appearing in the Court concerned. The charge was framed on 20.6.2007 and thereafter there was no progress in the trial. In the meanwhile, the petitioner went to Surat for earning his livelihood entrusting the pairvi on his pairviwar. Learned counsel submits that it is by reason of absence of pairvi and communication gap that he was never informed regarding the progress of trial and as a consequence whereof his bail bond was cancelled on 20.6.2009. The petitioner was taken into custody on 22.4.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no deliberate laches on the part of the petitioner who undertakes to attend the trial on each and every date without failure. Having regard to the submissions aforesaid, let the - 2 - petitioner Sakaldeo Yadav be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional District and Sessions Judge, 4th, Nawada in connection with Sessions Trial No. 521 of 2006 / 90 of 2009 arising out of Kawakole P.S. Case No. 5 of 2005 subject to the following conditions: (i) That one of the bailors would be his son Pappu Yadav who has sworn the affidavit before this Court. (ii) The petitioner would be attending the trial on each and every date fixed in the case and the failure on his part to attend the trial on two consecutive dates without any reasonable explanation to the satisfaction of the trail court would confer liberty on the court concerned to initiate proceedings for cancellation of his bail bonds and for taking him into custody. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)