IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.5076 of 2010 DHARAMBIR SINGH @ DHARAM SINGH, S/O RAMA NAND SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR **** /2/ 15.02.2010 Heard both the sides. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act. 3. The petitioner has been released on bail by an order, dated 20.08.2009, on condition that he would file an affidavit stating therein that he is not an accused in any other case. The petitioner could not be released on bail, since, he was an accused in two other cases. A fresh bail application has now been filed explaining the antecedent and from the bail orders I find that the antecedent of the petitioner does not interfere with the merits of the case. Under the circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Fatuha P.S. Case No. 7 of 2009 to the satisfaction of Sri P.K. Singh Srinet, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna city, on 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, (iii) that the petitioner will give an undertaking that he will receive 2 the police papers on the given date and be present on date fixed for charge and if he fails to do so on two given dates and delays the trial in any manner then his bail will be liable to be cancelled for reasons of misuse and (iv) that the petitioner will be well represented on each date and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail will be liable to be cancelled. 4. In the first information report it has been stated that the petitioner disclosed that he was an accused in three cases including the two which have been explained in the present petition, but, the petitioner submits that in fact he is not an accused in the third case of Parsa Police Station instituted in the year 1998. The learned Magistrate before releasing the petitioner from jail custody will call for a report from Parsa Police Station as to whether the petitioner is an accused in any case instituted in the year 1998. S.A. (Anjana Prakash, J.)