Sanjay @ Shankar Dayal Mehta @ Sanjay Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60191 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2019 Thana- RISIYAP District- Aurangabad ====================================================== SANJAY @ SHANKAR DAYAL MEHTA @ SANJAY MEHTA S/o Lakhan Mehta R/o Village- Risiup, District- Aurangabad (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bachan Jee Ojha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pronoti Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 04-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with Risiup P.S. Case No. 67 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 354 and 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code.

Informant in her written complaint has alleged that she is separate from petitioner for last three years and her husband remains outside being driver of a truck. On 08.07.2018 at about 11:00 PM when she was feeding her child, petitioner entered in her room and started teasing her and tried to commit rape upon her and also tried to kill her by setting her ablaze. Meanwhile, her husband came and she was rescued. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that he

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60191 of 2019(3) dt.04-12-2019 2/2 has been falsely implicated in this case due to family feud and dispute of property. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 10.07.2019.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner named above be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned court below, in connection with Barahara P.S. Case No. 217 of 2019 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 petitioners (S. Kumar, J) veena/- U T