Ganesh Sao @ Bhim Sao v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.67973 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-604 Year-2018 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Ganesh Sao @ Bhim Sao son of Late Rajendra Sao, Resident of VillagePadarath Lal Road, P.S. Danapur, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kalyan Shankar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Umanath Mishra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 06-11-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 604 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 272, 273, 476, 468, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 63 of Copyright Act 1957 and 103/104 Trade Mark Act.

Allegation against petitioner is supplying in the market duplicate fortune refined oil of 15 litres. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has purchased the fortune refined oil from its authorized dealer. He has clean antecedent and he is in custody since 05.09.2018.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.67973 of 2018(2) dt.06-11-2018 2/2 the case, let the petitioner named above be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned learned A.C.J.M.-1, Danapur, in connection Danapur P.S. Case No. 604 of 2018 subject to the conditions that:-

(1) Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned.

(2) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and his absence on two consecutive dates without proper and sufficient reason the trial court will be at liberty to cancel his bail bond.

(3) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

(S. Kumar, J) veena/- U T