Arbind @ Arvind Kumar Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.7829 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -158 Year- 2016 Thana -BIRPUR District- SUPAUL ======================================================

1. Arbind @ Arvind Kumar Mehta, Son of Shri Deo Narayan Mehta, resident of village - Narpatpatti, P.O. Lalman Patti, P.S. Ratanpura, District - Supaul .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amrit Abhijat For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Ashlam Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 22-02-2017 The petitioner is in custody since 07.07.2016 in connection with Birpur (Balua) P.S. Case No. 158 of 2016, registered for offences punishable under Sections 379, 511, 414 of the Indian Penal Code.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that though there is allegation against the petitioner that he attempted to commit theft, however he has been sufficiently punished for the said offence as he has remained in judicial custody for more than six months and so far other criminal antecedents of the petitioner is concerned, he is on bail in most of the cases. Heard learned A.P.P. also.

Having heard both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the period of custody and the nature of offence, let the petitioner above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand)

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7829 of 2017 (2) dt.22-02-2017 2/2 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned ACJM-, Birpur, Supaul, in connection with Birpur (Balua) P.S. Case No. 158 of 2016, with following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be a local person having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court.

(ii) The petitioner will not induce any witness or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The petitioner shall cooperate in the disposal of trial and make himself available as and when required by the court and on the event of failure on his part to appear before the court below on two consecutive dates without showing any genuine reasons, the prosecution is free to move for cancellation of his bail.

It is also made clear that if the petitioner again found involved in any of such offence, in future, his bail bonds will be cancelled.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U