Vikash Kumar Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.68266 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-204 Year-2018 Thana- DHAMDAHA District- Purnia ====================================================== Vikash Kumar Mehta, Son of Banarsi Mehta, Resident of village Chandrahi P.S. Dhamdaha, District- Purnea.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Parmanand Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 27-11-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with Dhamdaha P.S. Case No. 204 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 379, 411, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Informant has alleged that someone has stolen his motorcycle in the night which was parked in his Verandah. On the enquiry made by informant he came to know that petitioner had gone to market with said motorcycle to sell goat and thereafter petitioner fled away leaving the motorcycle. Informant has claimed that petitioner has stolen his motorcycle. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. No

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.68266 of 2018(2) dt.27-11-2018 2/2 incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and he is in custody since 24.07.2018.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, in connection with Dhamdaha P.S. Case No. 204 of 2018 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