Ram Kumar Mahto v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11661 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -20 Year- 2012 Thana -SITAMARHI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSITAMARHI ====================================================== Ram Kumar Mahto, Son of Mishri Lal Mahto, resident of VillageParigama, Tole- Jogiya, P.S- Pupri, District- Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Ganga Prasad Raut, son of late Sone Lal Raut, resident of VillageChoraut (East Tola), P.S.- Pupri, District- Sitamarhi. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.(Dr.) Alok Kumar Alok, Adv. Mr. Hans Lal Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party no.1 : Mr. Akbar Ali, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-03-2016 Heard.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a criminal prosecution registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Taking into consideration the fact that in the original FIR vide Annexure-2 the petitioner was not named as an accused and further taking into consideration the fact that, on close of investigation, final report was submitted as clueless, but on the protest petition filed by the informant an enquiry was conducted and cognizance has been taken against the petitioner, besides other, this Court is inclined to accede to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed. In the event of his arrest or surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today, let the above named petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11661 of 2016 (2) dt.16-03-2016 Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Pupari at Sitamarhi in connection with Case No.C-1/20/2012 arising out of Pupri P.S. Case No. 174 of 2010, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and subject to further conditions that: (A) One of the bailors must be government servant or close family members of the petitioner, who will file an affidavit in the court below showing his/her relationship with the petitioner, (B) 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 bail of the petitioner, and if such a petition is filed, the court below would be obliged to dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned;

(C) 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 date, and if on two consecutive dates petitioner fails to make pairvi, then the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner.

Arvind/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) U T