High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Surendra Mehta vs State Of Bihar on 14 June, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Surendra Mehta vs State Of Bihar on 14 June, 2010
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              Cr.Misc. No.19939 of 2010
                      SURENDRA MEHTA, SON OF FATULI MEHTA
                                           Versus
                                    STATE OF BIHAR
                                         -----------

2. 14.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

State.

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in a case

instituted for the offence under Sections 366(A) of the Indian

Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he

along with others had kidnapped the minor daughter of the

Informant. However, during investigation it transpired that it

was the nephew of the petitioner Lakhan Mehta who was in

fact, emotionally involved with the victim and had kidnapped

the girl for purposes of marriage.

In view of such, in the event of surrender of the

petitioner, named above, within four weeks from today in

connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 468 of 2009, he

shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond

of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) with two sureties of the like

amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Naugachiya, Bhagalpur, subject to the

conditions as laid down under section 438(2) Cr. P.C., and

(i)That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the

petitioner who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to

how he is related with the petitioner. The bailors will
2

undertake to furnish information to the court about any

change in the address of the petitioner, (ii) That the

petitioner shall undertake to be represented on the first date

after cognizance and in case he fails to do so, his bail bond

will be liable to be cancelled, (iii)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, and (iv)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 the cancelled.

(Anjana Prakash, J.)
S.Ali