Birendra Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.3835 of 2016 ====================================================== Birendra Singh Son of Navratan Singh resident of village - Govas, P.O. Kutumba, P.S. Kutumba, District - Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Aurangabad, District - Aurangabad .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyendra Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Bachan Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 18-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the B.S.F.C. The petitioner was granted bail vide order dated 21.07.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No.27914 of 2015 with a direction that if the petitioner, in the event of his arrest, surrenders in the court below within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order deposits 20% of the amount due against him, he shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in connection with Kutumba P.S. Case No.19 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with a further condition that the petitioner

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3835 of 2016 (2) dt.18-05-2016 2/2 shall deposit 20% of the remaining amount lying due against him within six months from the date of his release. It is submitted that the petitioner deposited Rs.5,00,000/- within time, but some delay has been caused in payment of the remaining dues, i.e., Rs.4,41,290/-.20 and the same was also deposited within eight months from the date of release of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the B.S.F.C. makes prayer for time to verify the facts. I find no reason to adjourn the matter. Since the petitioner has deposited 20% of the total amount alleged to have been misappropriated by him by now, there is no need to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner. With this observation, the modification petition is disposed of.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) N.H./- U T