IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18898 of 2010 OM PRAKASH CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE RAM BILASH CHOWDHARY, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA PANIKAL KAKE, P.S. – KAKE, DISTT. RANCHI ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DARBHANGA, DISTT. DARBHANGA. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MADHUBANI 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, JHANJHARPUR, DISTT. MADHUBANI. 5. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF POLICE, ANDHRATHARHI, DISTT. MADHUBANI. ------- OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 4. 24.02.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioner has sought quashing of the entire proceeding of Andhrathari P.S. Case No. 57 of 1998 pending before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, Distt. Madhubani. The prosecution case is that under the Government of Bihar Scheme, women who had given birth to a girl child were entitled to receive ` 500/- but somebody made a complaint that even though some ladies were selected under the said category, only 200/- rupees was paid to them instead of ` 500/-. The First Information Report was instituted on 20.5.1998 and the first charge sheet was submitted on 7.8.2001 but the petitioner was not sent up while the investigation was kept pending. The petitioner preferred an anticipatory bail application before this Court which was rejected by an order 2 dated 11.4.2002 whereafter the high Police Officials gave direction to the Investigating Officer to get the statements of those ladies who were given benefit of the scheme, recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. When the statement of those ladies were recorded, they stated that they had in fact, given Rs. 500/- and, therefore, nothing was amiss. Despite such material, final charge sheet was submitted on 31.12.2007 sending up the petitioner as an accused. The petitioner, thereafter, renewed his prayer for anticipatory bail, but the same was rejected on 26.2.2010 since the same was not maintainable being a second anticipatory bail application. The learned counsel for the State contends that the petitioner has been absconding and till date he has not appeared before the court below, and, therefore, the trial has remained pending. In my view, interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is directed to appear before the court concerned and on his appearance within four weeks from today in connection with Andhrathari P.S. Case No. 57 of 1998, he shall be granted bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, Distt. Madhubani, subject to 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 3 he is related with the petitioner and the other shall be the local since the petitioner belongs to Ranchi (Jharkhand). The bailors will undertake to furnish information to the court about any change in the address of the petitioner, (ii)That the petitioner is directed to receive Police papers immediately on the date of execution of his bail bond, and (iii) That the petitioner will be well represented on each date and if he fails to appear on date fixed for charge, his bail will be liable to be cancelled. The Magistrate concerned is directed to commit the case immediately to the court of Sessions, whereafter, the trial court shall make endeavour to examine the beneficiaries of the scheme as first few witness so that there is no further delay in trial. With these observations, the application is disposed off. Let this order be communicated to the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, Distt. Madhubani, in Andhratharhi P.S. Case No. 57 of 1998, through FAX at the cost of the petitioner. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)