IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23684 of 2010 Chamak Lal Mahto @ Chamak Lal Mandal Son of Shyam Sunder Mahto, resident of village Mahsom, P.S. Piribazar ( Surajgarha) District Lakhisarai --- petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR--- Opp. Party. ----------- 4/ 06-10-2010 Heard the parties. In a criminal prosecution registered under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under section 27 of the Arms Act, one Santosh Paswan is said to have reported to the informant, Reena Devi, about the murder of her husband having been committed by three F.I.R. named accused persons. It is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and admittedly entire prosecution case is based on the alleged information given by aforesaid Santosh Paswan to the informant. During the course of investigation, the statement of aforesaid Santosh Paswan was recorded wherein he has disclosed the name of the petitioner also, besides other persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if Santosh Paswan would have seen the petitioner participating in the crime in question, then he could have disclosed his name to the informant and he could have also been named in the F.I.R. itself as an accused. But admittedly at the first instance name of the petitioner was not disclosed by said Santosh Paswan. The petitioner is stated to be in judicial custody 2 since 09.02.2010. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, after going through the case diary, has fairly stated that except the statement of Santosh Paswan, there is no other material to connect the petitioner with the crime in question. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the above named petitioner is directed to the enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, in connection with Surajgarha (Piribazar) P.S. Case No. 204 of 2009, subject to conditions that : (A) one of the bailors shall be a government servant, (B) another bailor must be a family member or close relative of the petitioner, who will file an affidavit in the court below showing his/her relationship with the petitioner, (C) if the petitioner is found involved in same and similar nature of cases in future, then in that case the informant/ prosecution shall be at liberty to file a petition for cancellation of the bail of the petitioner, and if such a petition is filed, the court below would be obliged to dispose of the 3 same in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned and (D) the petitioner shall make regular pairvi in the court below in the present case either by appearing himself in person or through representation by his lawyer on each and every dates, and if on two consecutive dates petitioner fails to make pairvi, then the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)