Umesh Kumar Mehta @ Umesh Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.76759 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-97 Year-2017 Thana- LAUKAHI District- Madhubani ====================================================== Umesh Kumar Mehta @ Umesh Mehta, S/o Musaharu Mehta, Resident of Village- Dighiya (Dumuhan), P.S.- Nirmali, District- Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Bharti, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sri Aditya Narayan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-12-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with Laukahi P.S. Case No. 97/2017 registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

Petitioner is not named in the FIR. His name has surfaced in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Md. Ismail. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of petitioner and he has not been put on T.I.P. Petitioner is in custody since 10.08.2018.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner named above be released on bail upon

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.76759 of 2018(2) dt.20-12-2018 2/2 furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M., Jhanjharpur, District- Madhubani, in connection with Laukahi P.S. Case No. 97/2017 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