IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.11279 of 2010
1. HAMID AKHTAR KHAN son of Late Ajeez Khan.
2. Arshad Khan son of Hamid Khan
Both resident of Mohalla- Katra, P S. Bihar not Laheri, District- Nalanda.
3. Hamid Hussain Khan son of late Abdul Samad Khan, resident of Mohalla-
Kashi Takiya, P S. Laheri, District- Nalanda.
... Petitioners.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
2. 01.12.2010 Having heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rashid Izhar, learned
counsel for the informant as with regard to the prayer
made in this application for modification / clarification of
the earlier order dated 23.2.2010 in Cr. Misc. No. 1847 of
2010, this Court is of the considered opinion that such
prayer is wholly misconceived inasmuch as the petitioners
themselves have not given the clear undertaking as was
envisaged in the said order.
The petitioners were infact supposed to give
their clear undertaking for being released on bail that
whatsoever had been incorporated in Condition No. 2 of
their agreement dated 18.10.2009, will be complied by
them without fail. This Court does not understand the
reservation of the petitioners or the objection of the
informant as with regard to decision of Emarat-e-Sariya
2
inasmuch as the said part of the condition is only with
regard to custody of the child. So far the agreement
between the parties about fulfilment of depositing of the
amount is concerned, it is unequivocal that whatever
amount was sent by the informant in the name of his wife,
the same had to be deposited in the name of child of the
informant. Infact if computation of such amount had
already been made by the police in course of investigation
as is claimed have been done so by Mr. Rashid Izhar, the
petitioner had to only deposit the same in the name of the
child of the informant and file their undertaking before the
court below for being enlarged on bail.
That being so, this Court would give one more
indulgence to the petitioners to comply the order of this
Court dated 23.2.2010, within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
Let it be however made clear that this would be
the last and final extension of time and if the petitioners
for whatsoever reasons would not comply the order of this
Court dated 23.2.2010 in letter and spirit, they would not
be entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
With the aforementioned observation and
3
direction, this application is disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the court
below through FAX if its cost is deposited by the
petitioners.
Kanchan ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)