IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37665 of 2009 LALAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 27.10.2009 Heard. The case is of abscondance. The summon was first issued against the petitioner after passing of cognizance order on 3.1.1996. There was no service report and warrants of arrest issued for the apprehension of the petitioner were also not executed. The police reported on execution report of process under sections 82/83 of the Cr.P.C. that the petitioner did not have a house or in other words, a permanent place of living. However, the police arrested the petitioner from a house which was said to be belonging to the petitioner. The contention is that the very manner of arrest from a place described as the house of the petitioner, would be the sufficient indicator of the fact that reports were table works. The rejection order indicates that charges have been framed. The petitioner claims himself to be ex service man and has remained in custody for about five months. In the facts and circumstances, let petitioner Lalan Singh be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10000/(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Ist Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Vaishali in S.T. No. 363 of 2009 arising out of Vaishali P.S. Case No. 140 of 1992. The petitioner shall remain physically present on all dates to be fixed by the court below even if there was no progress made in - 2 - the case and the representation of the petitioner under section 317 Cr.P.C., if any, could be allowed only when the court is satisfied about the genuineness of the ground. The court concerned is directed that it must identify its duties on the conditions set forth above. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)