Md. Mojammil @ Mojammil Haque vs The State Of Bihar on 24 October, 2011

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   CR.MISC. NO.34764 OF 2011
                   MD. MOJAMMIL @ MOJAMMIL HAQUE,@ ABDULLA
                   KUDDUS @ ABDULLA, R/O VILLAGE SHANKERPUR,
                   P.S. BIRPUR, DISTRICT SUPAUL.
                                            .....................PETITIONER.

                                      VERSUS
                   THE STATE OF BIHAR.
                                     ...........................OPPOSITE PARTIY.
                            -----------

02/ 24.10.2011 Heard counsel for the parties.

The sole petitioner made accused for

the offence punishable under Section 307

and allied offences seeks anticipatory bail

on the ground that there is no specific

allegation of over act against him and the

co-accused standing on the similar footing

including Md. Tanwir Alam and Sheikh Jamir

@ Sheikh Jamhir have been granted

anticipatory bail on 13.09.2010 and

13.10.2011 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.

23915 of 2010 and Criminal Miscellaneous

No. 30757 of 2011.

Considering the fact that the case

of the petitioner stands on the same

footing of the aforesaid co-accused persons

including Md. Tanwir Alam and Sheikh Jamir

@ Sheikh Jamhir and the fact that the

allegation of specific overt act is only

against Pankaj Kumar, Anil Deo and Mr.
2

Arif, this Court would direct the

petitioner namely Md. Mojammil to surrender

within a period of four weeks from today

and if he does so, he would be released on

anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond

of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two

sureties of the like amount each to the

satisfaction of S.D.J.M, Birpur (district

Supaul) in connection with Birpur P.S Case

No. 21 of 2010 subject to the conditions

laid down under Section- 438 (2) Cr. P.C

and also subject to the following three

conditions:-

                     (i)     The    two        bail    bonds    will    be

         furnished,         one    by    the     Government      servant

and the other by a close family relative.

(ii) The petitioner will remain

present in course of trial on each and

every day and his absence even for a single

day would automatically entail the

consequences of cancellation of his bail.

(iii) The petitioner, in case, is

now made accused in any other criminal

case,that would itself lead to cancellation

of his bail.

Ranjan                                       (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)