Ali Ahmad @ Raju v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37712 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-118 Year-2016 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== Ali Ahmad @ Raju, aged about 36 years, Son of Late Wasee Ahmad Resident of Village- Aurangabad, P.S.- Amjhor, District- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Shakil Ahmad, aged about 49 years, Son of Late Sadruddin Resident of Laskriganj, P.S.- Sasaram (Nagar), District- Rohtas. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anuj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 21-06-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Tr. No. 584 of 2018 arising out of Sasaram (T) P.S. Case No. 118 of 2016 registered for offences under sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

In the present case, the matter relates to N.I. Act in connection with bouncing of cheque.

The parties have already settled the dispute and, to that extent, a compromise petition has also been filed before the court below which itself reflects from the impugned order dated

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37712 of 2019(2) dt.21-06-2019 2/2 15.3.2019 but, even then, the court below refused to exercise its jurisdiction to grant bail to the petitioner. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from today, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram in connection with Sasaram (T) P.S. Case No. 118 of 2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also subject to condition that whenever the police will call the petitioner for investigation/interrogation, he will remain present and if he would not present himself, the privilege of grant of anticipatory bail shall be deemed to have been canceled.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) rishi/- U T