Raj Kumar Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29791 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -71 Year- 2015 Thana -MOKAMAH District- PATNA ====================================================== Raj Kumar Mahto, son of Gariban Mahto, resident of Sabegpur Bigha Per, P.S.- Mokama, District- Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Gopesh Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 07-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Mokama P.S. Case No. 71 of 2015 instituted for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. As per written report Raghunath Mahto and Kashinath Mahto persuaded the informant and other depositors to deposit the money in common well Beverage Company Ltd. The petitioner is said to be the Manager of the aforesaid company. It is alleged that Rs.80 lacs has been misappropriated by the Officer concerned. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Raghunath Mahto and Kashinath Mahto have been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.8.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. 33804 of 2016.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29791 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-2017 2/2 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is allowed. In the event of surrender/arrest of the petitioner, named above, within six weeks from today, in connection with Mokama P.S. Case No. 71 of 2015, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh, Distt. Patna, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. with further conditions

(1) bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned, (2) petitioner 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 petitioner and (3) if 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. (Sanjay Priya, J) S.Ali/- U T