Rahul Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43245 of 2018 (3) dt.24-09-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.43245 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -106 Year- 2015 Thana -HATHUA District- GOPALGANJ ====================================================== Rahul Kumar Jha S/o Harish Chandra Jha, R/o House No. 0, Gali No. 10, Surya Vihar, Part III, Sehatpur, P.S.- Palla Chauki, District- Faridabad (Haryana).

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jagnnath Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kanhaiya Kishore, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for petitioner learned counsel for informant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Hathua P.S. Case No. 106/2015 (G.R. No. 1864/2015, T.R. 1640/2018), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 379 of the Indian Penal Cod and section 66 (C) of the Information Technology Act. Allegation is of withdrawal of Rs. 11,00,000/- by the I.R.C.T.C. from the account of informant fraudulently. It has been submitted that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case.

Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. He is in custody since 14.09.2016.

Considering the facts aforesaid, the petitioner above-

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43245 of 2018 (3) dt.24-09-2018 named, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in connection with Hathua P.S. Case No. 106/2015 (G.R. No. 1864/2015, T.R. 1640/2018), subject to the conditions: (1.) Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned.

(2.) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be present on each and every date fixed by the court and his absence on two consecutive dates without proper and reasonable reason will be sufficient to cancel his bail bonds.

(3.) If the 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.

(S. Kumar, J) Vinita/- U T