Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.22136 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Leeladhar Mishra, S/O Govind Mishra, R/O Village - Mehsiya, P.S. Riga, District - Sitamarhi 2. Gangadhar Mishra, S/O Govind Mishra, R/O Village - Mehsiya, P.S. Riga, District - Sitamarhi 3. Anand Mishra, S/O Leeladhaar Mishra, R/O Village - Mehsiya, P.S. Riga, District - Sitamarhi 4. Raghubansh Mishra @ Tunai Mishra, S/O Leeladhar Mishra, R/O Village - Mehsiya, P.S. Riga, District - Sitamarhi 5. Ashutosh Mishra, S/O Gangadhar Mishra, R/O Village - Mehsiya, P.S. Riga, District – Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 13-06-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with a case instituted for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. It is submitted that the case was initially filed as a complaint which was referred to police for institution of F.I.R. and investigation in exercise of powers conferred under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. and pursuant thereto the F.I.R. was registered. The police took up investigation and upon conclusion of investigation, a final report was submitted finding the accusation as against the petitioners to be false. However, differing with the police report, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. Be that as it may, considering the nature of allegation, facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners above named in the event of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22136 of 2012 (2) dt.13-06-2012 2 / 2 2 their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in connection with Riga P.S. Case No. 115 of 2010 subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P.C. and also on the following conditions: (i) That both the bailors will be close relative of the petitioners who will give separate affidavit giving genealogy as to how they are related with the petitioners. (ii) That the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the court or to any other authority. (iii) That they shall remain present before the court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If they want to remain absent, then they will take prior permission of the court and in case of compelling and unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, they will immediately inform the court and request that they may be permitted to be present through their counsel. (iv) That liberty is given to the State to make an appropriate application for modifying/recalling the order granting bail, if for any reason, the petitioners violate any of the conditions imposed by this Court. Sanjeet/- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 379

Statute Text:
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Theft. Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.