Manish Kumar Jain And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.4417 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No. -689 Year- 2016 Thana -BHAGALPUR KOTWALI DistrictBHAGALPUR ======================================================

1. Manish Kumar Jain, Son of Manik Chand Jain, resident of Mohalla- Raghunath Sahay Lane, Chunihari Tola, Post- Bhagalpur, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Bhagalpur.

2. Dilip Kumar Mishara, Son of Late Baldev Mishra, Resident of Village- Shailendra, Post + P.S.- Shivnarayanpur, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioners : Mr. Kumar Mritunjay Narain, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 20-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners are in custody since 08.12.2016 in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 689 of 2016 for the offences alleged under Sections 419, 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 27(B) (ii), 27(C) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940.

3. It is submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and they happened to be the servants of one Bharat Bhushan Jain who is the owner of M/s Surbhi Udyog and license holder for sanitary towels. It is submitted that no license is required for manufacture of crepe bandage which was found within the premises. The petitioners claim clean antecedents.

4. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4417 of 2017 (3) dt.20-02-2017 2/2 connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 689 of 2016, on the following conditions:- (i) That one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners.

(ii) That the petitioners shall not indulge in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial.

(iii) The petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation, if not already concluded, and make themselves 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 petitioners 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, their bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned Court concerned.

(Vikash Jain, J) Md. Ibrarul/BT U T