IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17681 of 2009 SUSHIL MALLAH @ NANDU CHOUDHARY SON OF ROGI MALLAH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 15.2.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 302, 307, 323, 353, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and 17 of the C.L.A. Act. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 6.6.2002 and the report of the trial court reveals that due to non-appearance of the co-accused persons, who are on bail, the trial is not proceeding despite the fact that charges were framed on 26.9.2006 itself, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.4, Rohtas at Sasaram in S.Tr.No.243 of 2006 arising out of Nauhatta (Chutiya) P.S.case No.29 of 1999, subject to the conditions (i) That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioner, (ii) that the bailor shall also state on affidavit that he will inform the court concerned if the petitioner is implicated in any other case of similar nature after his release in the present case and thereafter the court below will be at liberty to initiate the proceeding for cancellation of bail on the ground of misuse of bail and (iii) that the petitioner will be well represented on each date - 2 - and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail will be liable to be cancelled. The trial court is directed to take all effective steps to ensure the appearance of the co-accused including corresponding with the Superintendent of Police concerned for the same. In the mean while, the prosecution witnesses should also be noticed so that there is no further delay in the trial. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )