Bajrangi Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.70348 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-398 Year-2018 Thana- BANKA District- Banka ====================================================== Bajrangi Mahto Son of Baleshwar Mahto, Resident of Village-Amarpur, P.S. Banka, District-Banka.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party:

APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 01-02-2019 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, 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Banka P.S. Case No. 398 of 2018.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and in any event the amount of Rs. 9,02,905/- is said to have been defalcated has since already been deposited in the Government bank account by the Panchayat Secretary. The petitioner has been implicated merely because he was the Mukhiya of the Panchayat. 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka in connection with Banka P.S. Case No. 398 of 2018 subject to the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.70348 of 2018(3) dt.01-02-2019 2/2 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) The petitioner shall cooperate 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) 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) Ibrar//- U T