Raj Kumar Mehta And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25749 of 2016 (2) dt.22-06-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.25749 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -109 Year- 2014 Thana -PURAINI District- MADHEPURA ======================================================

1. Raj Kumar Mehta s/o Bhola Mehta

2. Chotelal Mehta S/o Bhola Mehta Both are resident of village- Korchakka Basa, P.S.- Puraini, DistrictMadhepura..... .......................................... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anant Kumar-1 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Manoj Kumar - 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 22-06-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioners want to renew their prayer of bail, which was earlier rejected vide order dated 24.11.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 34758 of 2015, on the ground that they are in custody since 12.12.2015, there is general and omnibus allegation, similarly situated other co-accused Nand Kishore Mehta, Lalo Mehta, Kundan Mehta have been allowed bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 32678 of 2015 and Mukesh Mehta has been allowed bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 12266 of 2016. The trial has not been concluded within time as per order dated 24.11.2015 and there is no chance of tampering with prosecution evidence.

Learned APP fairly submits that now considering the period of detention lenient view may be taken.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25749 of 2016 (2) dt.22-06-2016 In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering that other similarly situated co-accused have been allowed bail, the petitioners above named are directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Madhepura in Sessions Trial No. 77 of 2015 arising out of Puraini P.S. Case No.109 of 2014, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioners shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on their part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioners from privilege of bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T