Indrabhushan Jha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39158 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2020 Thana- BARURAJ District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Indrabhushan Jha Son Of Umesh Jha Resident Of Village -Maisaha P.S -Kanti, Distt- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Kishori Devi Wife Of Sonelal Chaudhary Resident Of Village - Harnahi, P.S- Baruraj, Distt- Muzaffarpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 05-07-2023 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 13.10.2022 in connection with Baruraj P.S. Case No. 183 of 2020, F.I.R. dated 20.09.2020 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 323,406,420,120(B) of IPC. The case of the prosecution in the complaint petition is that the petitioner, Niranjan Kumar and also the Branch Manager, PNB, Prasauni Nath are running a CSP Centre. It is further alleged in the complaint petition that the petitioner collected amount from the people and gave forged receipt. When the informant went to the accused Bank Manager, PNB,
2/4 he denied rendering money and said that he does not know anything and when the complainant visited the office of CSP the petitioner and other accused persons had locked the office of the CSP.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Further submits that from bare perusal of the FIR/complaint petition, it appears that the petitioner has not received any amount in question rather the amount received by co-accused Niranjan Kumar and the petitioner had authorized Niranjan Kumar to receive the amount in question from the person concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner outrightly submits that the petitioner is ready to pay the amount in question to the complainant/informant subject to the condition that if the petitioner succeeds in the trial, the amount which was paid to the informant/complainant, she shall return the amount to the petitioner without any interest. Learned counsel for the informant/complainant has no objection in this regard. Learned APP for the State submits that the petitioner carries one more case other than the present one.
Considering the aforesaid facts, let the petitioner,
3/4 above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M.-1st Class, Muzaffarpur West in connection with Baruraj P.S. Case No. 183 of 2020,with the following conditions:- (1)Petitioner shall deposit Rs. 1,00,000/-(One Lac) by way of demand draft in favour of the complainant/informant, namely, Kishori Devi, Wife of Sonelal Chaudhary at the time of furnishing bail bond and the rest amount of Rs.2,80,000/-(Two Lacs Eighty Thousand)will be paid to the informant/complainant in six monthly equal installments.
(2)Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(3) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(4) And, further condition that the court below shall
4/4 verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U T