Manoj Mehta @ Manoj Kumar Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84592 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2016 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul ====================================================== 1.

MANOJ MEHTA @ MANOJ KUMAR MEHTA Son of Sukan Mehta, Resident of Village - Laxminiya Ward No. 11, Police Station - Supaul, District - Supaul.

2.

Mahesh Mehta @ Mahesh Kumar Mehta Son of Sukan Mehta, Resident of Village - Laxminiya Ward No. 11, Police Station - Supaul, District - Supaul. 3.

Sukan Mehta Son of Late Bhagwad Mehta, Resident of Village - Laxminiya Ward No. 11, Police Station - Supaul, District - Supaul. 4.

Sandeep Mehta Son of Brahmdeo Mehta, Resident of Village - Laxminiya Ward No. 11, Police Station - Supaul, District - Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Naresh Kumar Mehta, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Md. Matloob Rab, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 18-06-2020 Heard both sides through Video Conferencing.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Supaul P.S. Case No.48 of 2016 registered under Sections 341, 323, 379, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant alleged that Manoj Mehta assaulted Deepak Kumar (son of the informant) with farsa on his head and Mahesh Mehta is alleged to have assaulted the informant with iron rod on his head. Sukan Mehta is alleged to have assaulted the second son of the informant with lathi and Sandeep Mehta took away Rs.2100/- from the pocket of the informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84592 of 2019(3) dt.18-06-2020 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the sons of the informant got simple injury. Now the case has been compromised between the parties.

Having considered the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegations made against the petitioners and the fact that the case has been compromised between the parties, the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Supaul in connection with Supaul P.S. Case No.48 of 2016, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Harish/- U T