IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34941 of 2008 RAMSIDH YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 11.9.2008 Heard. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge simply indicates as to when the warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner on account of his abscondance without pointing out since which date the petitioner had absented himself from the trial. It is very difficult for this court to assume anything and to discard the contention that the petitioner had absented on 11.1.2002 and was arrested and produced before the trial court on 17.3.2008 and has remained in custody for about six months without any witness being produced or examined. This much is evidently clear that the learned Judge also felt inclined to grant bail to the petitioner but put up an embargo of six months time for releasing the petitioner. Now that the petitioner is in custody since last about six months, let the above named petitioner be released from custody on furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge - 2 - Ist(F.T.C.)Bhojpur at Ara in S.Tr.No.390A of 1998(Sahar P.S.Case no.96 of 1997) with the following conditions:- (1)That the petitioner shall remain physically present on all dates of hearing, even if the witness is not attendance. (2)That no representation of the petitioner shall be allowed through his counsel unless very strong and reasonable grounds are indicated and shown to the court concerned. (3)That any attempt by the petitioner brought into the notice of the court below indicating that the petitioner was attempting to tamper with the evidence or was intimidating the witnesses could be sufficient for the court below to assume that this order had not been passed and take steps for remanding the petitioner to custody. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )