Bechan Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.59991 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -130 Year- 2017 Thana -MAHILA P.S District- SUPAUL ====================================================== Bechan Mehta son of Suvi Mehta, R/o Village- Parsa, Ward No. - 5, P.S.- Kishanpur, District- Supaul.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 12-12-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 06.10.2017 in connection with Supaul Mahila P.S. Case No. 130 of 2017 for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 323, 354(B), 380, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated owing to village politics and the accusations against the accused persons who are various male members of the family itself is highly improbable in nature. The FIR has been instituted after an inordinate delay of more than 10 days on 01.09.2017 for the alleged occurrence of 20.08.2017, which itself casts serious doubt about the veracity of the accusations. All the accused persons are co-villagers of the informant. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.

4. Be that as it may, having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.59991 of 2017 (2) dt.12-12-2017 thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul in connection with Supaul Mahila P.S. Case No. 130 of 2017 on the following 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/BT U T