Vinod Kumar Mehta v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37546 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-298 Year-2018 Thana- BIRPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== VINOD KUMAR MEHTA Son of Sri Devi Lal Mehta Resident of VillageJagir Araji, Kosikapur, Ward No. 13, P.S.- Birpur, District- Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Most. Amla Devi W/O Late Raja Ram Mehta Resident of VillageGidarmari, Ward No. 5, P.S.- Birpur, District- Supaul. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Amrit Abhijat For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Nand Kishore Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 24-06-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/506/34 IPC registered in connection with Birpur P.S. Case No. 298/2018.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated only with a view to avoid payment due to the petitioner for arranging work Visa to Malaysia for the informant's son Vijay Kumar Mehta and one Manoj Kumar Mehta. It is submitted that on being requested the petitioner issued for tourist Visa for 15 days and after making a visit to Malaysia the informant's son requested for arranging work permit for one year. An agreement was entered into with Vijay Kumar Mehta for arranging work permit Visa for one year and in respect of which the petitioner was to be paid an amount of Rs. 3.78 lakhs, as against an amount of Rs. 1.23 lakhs earlier paid and the difference being demanded by the petitioner was not paid and instead the present FIR has been lodged by the mother of Vijay Kumar Mehta. It is further stated that the requisite work permit Visas were issued in favour of Vijay Kumar Mehta and Manoj Kumar Mehta which remains valid till
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37546 of 2019(2) dt.24-06-2019 2/2 12.10.2019 (Annexure-3 series), but it appears that they have chosen not to go to Malaysia. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.
4. Be that as it may, in the event of the petitioner's arrest or surrender before the court below within six weeks from the date of communication of this order, let the above named petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned ACJM, Birpur, District Supaul in connection with Birpur P.S. Case No. 298/2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438
(2) Cr.P.C. and also subject to the following further conditions: i. That one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner. ii. That the petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial.
iii. That the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation, if not already concluded, and make himself available as and when so required and in case of failure, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iv. That the petitioner 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, his bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned Court concerned. (Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/- U T