IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.6482 of 2010 Deonath Chaudhary, Son of Sri Ambika Chaudhary, Resident of Village Jamuao, P.S. Sandesh, District Bhojpur. -------- Petitioner Versus State of Bihar ------ Opp. Party ----------- 2 4.3.2010 Heard Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner being made accused for an offence under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code has his defence that even after approximately sixteen years of launching of prosecution when cognizance was taken for the aforementioned offence and summon was issued, nothing substantial has been found against him, inasmuch as, by this period, the co-accused facing main allegation of embezzlement/misappropriation on being put on trial has been acquitted of his charge. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner is a Junior Engineer who was posted in Sitamarhi district in the year 1993 and when in the charge-sheet no material was found against the petitioner and the police 2 submitted final report in the year 2003, the only reason for his being involved in this case is the order of the learned Magistrate differing from such police report which was passed only in the year 2007 by which period, he had been transferred from Sitamarhi district. Mr. Mahto would further submit that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and would definitely appear in the pending trial which is going on against co-accused Bimlendu Kumar Tiwari. Considering the aforementioned materials and specially the fact that the petitioner is sought to be arrested now in connection with an offence of the year 1993 only on the strength of an order taking cognizance of the year 2007 in relation to an offence in which the main accused has already been acquitted, this Court would direct the petitioner, namely, Deonath Chaudhary to surrender within a period of four weeks from today and if he does so, he would be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of 3 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in connection with Sursand P.S. Case No. 103 of 1993, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal procedure. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner, thereafter, shall remain present on each and every day in course of trial which must be taken up along with the pending trial of co-accused Bimlendu Kumar Tiwari and absence of the petitioner even on a single day without any reasonable cause would lead to automatic cancellation of his bail. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)