Shashi Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.67945 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-190 Year-2015 Thana- GAMAHARIYA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Shashi Mehta Son of Baij Nath Mehta Resident of Village-Latraha P.S.-Lokha Dist.-Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Nityanand ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 28-11-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with S.T. No.43 of 2018 arising out of Gamharia P.S. Case No. 190 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 384, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act.

Allegation against petitioner and other co-accused as named in the FIR is of demanding ransom and firing upon informant but which did not hit him. However, upon assemblage of local villagers petitioner and his associates fled away. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has been remanded in this case on 29.06.2016. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.67945 of 2018(2) dt.28-11-2018 2/2 the case, let the petitioner named above be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.D.J.-II, Madhepura, in connection with S.T. No.43 of 2018 arising out of Gamharia P.S. Case No. 190 of 2015 subject to the conditions that:-

(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 properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and his absence on two consecutive dates without proper and sufficient reason the trial court will be at liberty to cancel his bail bond.

(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) veena/- U T