IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20130 of 2010 VIJAY KUMAR SINGH @ SONU KUMAR @ BINAY KUMAR SINGH SON OF RAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA HANUMAN MANDIR, NEW TARACHAK, P.S. DANAPUR, DISTRICT PATNA. – PETITIONER. Versus STATE OF BIHAR--- OPP. PARTY. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Adv. For the State : Mr. Ahamad Ali, A.P.P. ----- 2/ 14.06.2010 Heard the parties. In a criminal prosecution originally instituted under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, in which subsequently offence under section 420/34 of the I.P.C. was also added, there is allegation that Rs. 2, 39,020/- were illegally withdrawn by using A.T.M. Card of the informant. It has been admitted in the F.I.R. that aforesaid A.T.M. Card was in possession of the son of the informant. The petitioner and one more person, being the friends of the son of the informant, are suspected to have misused the aforesaid A.T.M. Card of the informant. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that allegation of misuse is for the period from 2nd November, 2009 to 10th November, 2009, but the present F.I.R. has been lodged after an undue delay on 14.01.2010. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact son of the informant has himself misused the A.T.M. Card of the informant and allegation against the petitioner is merely in the realm of suspicion. There is no direct - 2 - material to show the complicity of the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to be in judicial custody since 09.03.2010. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the above named petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of A.C.J.M., Danapur in Danapur P.S. Case No. 7 of 2010 subject to the conditions that : (A) one of the bailors must be government servant or close family members of the petitioner, who will file an affidavit in the court below showing his/her relationship with the petitioner, (B) if the petitioner is found involved in same and similar nature of cases in future, then in that case the informant/ prosecution shall be at liberty to file a petition for cancellation of the bail of the petitioner, and if such a petition is filed, the court below would be obliged to dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned and (C) the petitioner shall make regular pairvi in - 3 - the court below in the present case either by appearing himself in person or through representation by his lawyer on each and every dates, and if on two consecutive dates petitioner fails to make pairvi, then the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J ) BTiwary/