Ramesh Ram Bali Patel And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.29543 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -346 Year- 2014 Thana -GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District- GAYA ======================================================
1. Ramesh Ram Bali Patel, s/o- Raj Bali Patel
2. Manbhavati Ramesh Patel, wife of Ramesh Ram Bali Patel, Both residents of Kamla Goswamichal, Aliyawer Jung Marg (Purv), Bhandu-1, P.S.- Gheradi, District- Bandra Purv. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Puja Pappu Pathak, wife of Pappu Pathak, resident of village Vakilganj, P.S.- Dobhi, District- Gaya A/P Chandchaura, Dinapur, P.S.- Civil Lines, District- Gaya.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 09-09-2016 Heard Mr. D.K. Sinha for the petitioners and Mr. Pandey, APP for the State.
These two petitioners are husband and wife. They are cited as accuseds of Complaint Case No. 346 of 2014 registered under sections 420 and 506 of the IPC and hence the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Mr. Sinha placed the complaint in extenso and submits that the only allegation is that while the petitioners were in the company of the complainant, a signature was obtained on a paper in which something was written in Marathi. It is not the allegation that the document was converted into any valuable security or any document conveying any property. He submits that this is merely a presumption of the complainant. The main
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29543 of 2016 (2) dt.09-09-2016 2/2 allegation pertains to the other accuseds in respect of the fraudulent possession of the Kholi in Mumbai allegedly owned by the complainant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that in the event of arrest or surrender in the Court below within four weeks, the petitioners abovenamed are directed to be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Smt. Sarika Vahalia, J.M. Ist Class, Gaya in Complaint Case No. 346 of 2014 subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. with the further following conditions:
(i) One of the bailers shall be the own/close family members of the petitioners.
(ii) In case of framing of charge, the petitioners shall appear in person on each and every date fixed in the Court below. In case of default in doing so on two consecutive occasions without any cogent/satisfactory reason, the Trial Court shall have liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioners and secure their arrest in accordance with law.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/- U T