IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10853 of 2010 RAMESH BHERIHAR @ RAMESH RAUT @ RAMESH MAHTO, Son of late Rambachan Raut, R/o Madhubanighat, P.S. Motihari Muffasil, District Motihari …….. Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR …. Opposite Party ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Uma Shankar Pd. Singh, A.P.P. ------ 3 12.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 27 of the Arms Act and 17 of the C.L.A. Act. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the allegation of assaulting the deceased is specific upon co- accused Jagdish Mahto. However, it is stated subsequently in the first information report that several other persons including the petitioner were also firing. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner is named in the first information report but he does not bear any definite allegation. It is further stated that co-accused Nawal Kishore Tiwari, who is on similar footing, has already been granted bail by a Bench of this Court by order dated - 2 - 14.11.2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 38059 of 2008. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, the petitioner, RAMESH BHERIHAR @ RAMESH RAUT @ RAMESH MAHTO, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari in connection with Motihari Muffasil P.S. Case No. 87 of 2008, with a further condition that one of the bailors of the petitioner must be a close relative or family member of the petitioner, who shall file affidavit before the concerned court giving complete genealogy to show his or her relationship with the petitioner. 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.)