IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.16338 of 2011 Suresh Manjhi, Son of Kesho Manjhi, resident of village Balthar, P.S. Barachatti, District Gaya …… Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar …. Opposite Party ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : M/s Vikramdeo Singh & Nikhilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pranav Kumar, A.P.P. 4 19.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for offences punishable under Section 4 / 5 of Explosive Substance Act and Section 17 of C.L.A. Act. The prayer of bail of the petitioner had earlier been rejected twice vide order dated 30.3.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42764 of 2009 as well as order dated 3.11.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 33657 of 2010, copies of which have been appended as Annexure 1 series to this application. However, while rejecting the prayer for bail vide order dated 3.11.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 33657 of 2010 the trial court was directed to take steps for expeditious disposal of the trial preferably within 2 six months and liberty was granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that of course huge quantity of explosive materials had been recovered but the same has been recovered from the community hall though it has been alleged that it was under the control of the petitioner as he was holding key of the lock put on such premises. The learned counsel submits that the trial has not been concluded within six months as directed by this Court and it has not been stated any where that delay was due to fault on the part of the petitioner. It is further contended that it has not come during the course of investigation that the petitioner is having any nexus with the antisocial or extremists elements and in some of the paragraphs of the case diary it has come that the detonators were being utilized for blasting the rocks / hills etc.. It is further urged that the petitioner is in custody since 26.9.2009, i.e., about more than two years and further that petitioner’s 3 antecedent is clean which would be evident from the case diary as well as the report received in this regard. Learned counsel appearing for the State though submitted that huge quantity of detonators has been recovered from the community hall which was under the control of the petitioner but he also accepts the aforesaid proposition on behalf of the petitioner that the antecedent of the petitioner is clean as per the case diary and no nexus between the petitioner and the extremists elements has come up during the course of investigation and this is also the fact that within the time given by this Court trial could not be concluded. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, the petitioner, Suresh Manjhi, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati, Gaya in connection with Barachatti P.S. Case No. 240 of 2009, with a further condition that one of the bailors of the 4 petitioner must be his father. Further, the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during the course of trial. If the petitioner fails to remain present on two consecutive dates without any reasonable explanation then the court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds of the petitioner. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)