Jagarnath Mahto And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.59717 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year- Thana- District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.

Jagarnath Mahto, son of late Jaggu Mahto

2. Pinku Kumar

3. Neelu Kumar @ Ramesh Singh @ Ramesh Kumar @ Neel Kumar Both 2 and 3 are sons of Jagarnath Mahto All are resident of village, Sonar Toli, P.O. and Police Station, Sasaram (Town), District, Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar

2. Punjab National Bank through its Branch Manager, Sasaram Branch, Sasaram, Police Station, Sasaram (Town), District, Rohtas ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. MATLOOB RAB ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 20-12-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. This application has been filed by the petitioners for modification of order dated 19.09.2017, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 277 of 2017, whereby petitioners were allowed provisional bail on certain conditions. One of the conditions therein was that rupees one lac would be deposited by the petitioners to the opposite party no.2 and receipt showing such payment should be produced before the court below at the time of furnishing bail bond and balance amount of Rs.3,66,583/- would also be required to be paid by the petitioners to the opposite party no.2 by 19.01.2018 and, thereafter, the court below would make the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.59717 of 2017(2) dt.20-12-2017 2/2 provisional bail absolute. However, it is submitted that the petitioners, due to reasons mentioned in this application, could not deposit the aforesaid amount within the given period and, thus, petitioners seek extension of time for payment of the total amount to the opposite party no.2.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed and time for depositing the balance amount as discussed in the order dated 19.09.2017, as contained in Annexure 1, is extended by further eight weeks from today. On such deposit having been made, the provisional bail would be made absolute by the court below.

It is made clear that if the petitioners again fail to comply the order, no application for further extension of time would be entertained by this Court.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Sanjay/- U T