Ramsakal Mahto And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.10050 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -213 Year- 2016 Thana -BARAULI District- GOPALGANJ ======================================================
1. Ramsakal Mahto Son of Late Parma Mahto
2. Samir Mahto @ Samir Mahto Son of Ram Sakal Mahto
3. Subhawati Kumari D/o Ram Sakal Mahto
4. Chinta Devi Wife of Ram Sakal Mahto All Resident of Village-Kahla Hazari, P.S. Barauli, District-Gopalganj.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Anisur Rahman For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Parmeshwar Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 21-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Barauli P.S. Case No. 213 of 2016 initiated for the offence under Sections-363, 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is alleged that daughter of the informant went outside but she did not return back. The informant has suspected that she has gone with Dhananjay Mehta. The informant with his family members searched for her. The statement of the victim was recorded u/S 164 of the Cr.P.C. in which, she stated that she had gone to Goa tour with Dhananjay Mehta. The petitioners are family members of Dhananjay Mehta.
Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed it
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10050 of 2017 (3) dt.21-04-2017 2/2 is ordered that the petitioners named above, in the event of their arrest or surrender in the court below within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Barauli P.S. Case No. 213 of 2016 to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj subject to condition as laid down u/S 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
with further conditions (1) bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned, (2) petitioners shall cooperate in the trial and shall be present on each and every date fixed by the court and absence on two consecutive dates without proper and reasonable reason, will automatically cancel bail bond of the petitioners and (3) if petitioners tamper 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 petitioners. (Sanjay Priya, J) A.K.V.