Vijay Mahto And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.32861 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -390 Year- 2016 Thana -DALSINGHSARAI District- SAMASTIPUR ======================================================

1. Vijay Mahto, Son of Sone Lal Mahto, Resident of Village- Ghat Nawada, P.S.- Dalsingsarai, District- Samastipur.

2. Dukhan Mahto, Son of Late Gansehi Mahto, R/o Village- Chak Nawada, P.S.- Dalsingsarai, District- Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rana Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Lakshmi Kant Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 18-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Dalsingsarai P.S. Case No. 390 of 2016 instituted for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

The First Information Report is against unknown. It has been submitted that the name of the petitioner has been disclosed by co-accused Md. Jamil Akhtar @ Haidar on his arrest. Now the matter has been compromised between the parties and a compromise petition has been enclosed as Annexure2. It is mentioned in paragraph-3 of the bail petition that

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32861 of 2017 (2) dt.18-07-2017 2/2 petitioners have no criminal antecedent Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is allowed. In the event of surrender/arrest of the petitioners, named above, within six weeks from today, in connection with Dalsingsarai P.S. Case No. 390 of 2016, they shall 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai, Samastipur, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

with further conditions (1) bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned, (2) petitioners shall cooperate in the trial and shall be present on each and every date fixed by the court and absence on two consecutive dates without proper and reasonable reason will automatically cancel bail bond of the petitioners and (3) if petitioners tamper 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.

(Sanjay Priya, J) S.Ali/- U T