High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Dipo Mukhiya vs State Of Bihar on 1 October, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Dipo Mukhiya vs State Of Bihar on 1 October, 2010
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      Cr.Misc. No.32891 of 2010
                   DIPO MUKHIYA, S/o Jogi Mukhiya.
                                Versus
                         THE STATE OF BIHAR
                               -----------

02. 01.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for

the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and

472/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 151 of

Railway Act.

Considering that the petitioner has remained in

custody since 22.06.2010 and has no criminal

antecedent, let the petitioner, above named be released on

bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 5,000/- (Five

Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each or

any other surety as fixed by the Court to the satisfaction

of Railway Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria in connection

with Saharsa Rail P.S. Case No. 13 of 2010 (G.R. No. 76 of

2010) subject to the following conditions:- (i) That one of

the bailors shall be local since the petitioner belongs to

Saharsa and the other bailor shall be the father/brother

of the petitioner. The bailor will also undertake to inform

the Court if there is any change in the address of the

petitioner. (ii) That the affidavit shall clearly state that the

petitioner is not an accused in any other case and if he is

he shall not be released on bail. (iii) That the bailor shall
2

also state on affidavit that he will inform the court

concerned if the petitioner is implicated in any other case

of similar nature after his 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. (iv) That the petitioner will give an undertaking

that he will receive the police papers on the given date and

be present on date fixed for charge and if he fails to do so

on two given dates and delays the trial in any manner, his

bail will be liable to be cancelled for reasons of misuse. (v)

That the petitioner will be well represented on each date

and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail

will be liable to be cancelled.

The Trial Court is well advised to conclude trial

positively within a period of one year in view of the nature

of offence.

(Anjana Prakash, J.)
Vikash/-