IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.33045 of 2011
1. Shivji Mahto @ Sheojee Mahto son of Rambriksh Mahto
2. Rajesh Mahto son of Shivjee Mahto
Versus
The State Of Bihar
----------------------------------
2. 12.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the
State.
The petitioners were refused bail by an order
dated 24.9.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. 23706 of 2010 but were
granted bail subsequently by an order dated 25.7.2011 passed
in Cr. Misc. 23424 of 2011 on one of the conditions that an
affidavit shall be filed on their behalf that they have fair
antecedents.
It has been submitted that due to misconception,
the submission had been made that the petitioners have fair
antecedents even though a complaint under Section 323 and
minor offences was pending against the petitioners since the
year 2005, and it was due to pendency of the case, the
required affidavit could not be filed in the Court below.
Considering that the petitioners were found fit to
be released on bail on merits and they have explained their
antecedents, let the petitioners above named, be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each or any other
surety to be fixed by the court concerned to the satisfaction of
7th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, Distt.
Muzaffarpur, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 626 of
2
2010 arising out of Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 110 of 2010,
subject to the following conditions: (i) That one of the bailors
will be a close relative of the petitioners, who will give an
affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the
petitioners. The bailors will undertake to furnish information to
the court about any change in the address of the petitioners.
(ii) That the bailors shall also state on affidavit that they will
inform the court concerned if the petitioners are implicated in
any other case of similar nature after their release in the
present case and thereafter the court below will be at liberty to
initiate the proceeding for cancellation of bail on the ground of
misuse. (iii) That the petitioners will give an undertaking that
they will receive the police papers on the given date and be
present on date fixed for charge and if they fail to do so on two
given dates and delay the trial in any manner, their bail will be
liable to be cancelled for reasons of misuse. (iv) That the
petitioners will be well represented on each date and if they
fail to do so on two consecutive dates, their bail will be liable to
be cancelled.
A sum of Rs. 750/- (Seven hundred fifty) shall be
deposited by the petitioners in the concerned District Legal
Aid Committee after releasing on bail.
( Anjana Prakash, J.)
S.Ali