Raj Kr. Mandal @ Baua Mandal And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.13108 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No. -72 Year- 2016 Thana -PRATAPGANJ District- SUPAUL ======================================================

1. Raj Kr. Mandal @ Baua Mandal , son of Mohan Mandal, resident of Village Sahibganj, Police Station Narpatganj, District Araria

2. Md. Munna, Son of Md. Islam, resident of Village Ranigaj, Police Station Narpatganj, District Araria .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioners : Mr. Arun, Advocate For the Opposite Party : APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 18-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners are in custody since and 16.09.2016 and 01.10.2016, respectively, in connection with Pratapganj P.S. Case No. 72 of 2016 for the offences alleged under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated merely because they happened to be accused in some other cases. Statement is made at the Bar that the petitioners are on bail in respect of all such cases in which they are accused. The first information report is against unknown persons and no test identification parade has been conducted to identify the petitioners. No recovery of any incriminating articles has been made from their possession.

4. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13108 of 2017 (2) dt.18-03-2017 2/2 satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Birpur (Supaul) in connection with Pratapganj P.S. Case No. 72 of 2016 with the following conditions:

(i) That one of the bailors of each of the petitioners shall be their close relatives.

(ii) That the petitioners shall not indulge in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial.

(iii) That the petitioners shall remain physically present in court on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned Court concerned.

(iv) The petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation, if not already concluded, and make themselves available as and when so required and in case of failure, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. (Vikash Jain, J) B.T/Ibrar U T