IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42318 of 2009 BISHWAMBHAR PURBEY, SON OF LATE GANGA PURBEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAINAGAR, POLICE STATION JAI NAGAR, DISTRICT MADHUBANI VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 17.12.2009 Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of order dated 10.12.2009 as time was granted to him to seek instructions, a FAX message was sent to the District Magistrate, Madhubani for sending instructions on 11.12.2009 itself. However, he submits that till today he has not received any instructions. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. As per the prosecution case petitioner happens to be the proprietor of M/s Ram Bilas Purbey, a registered firm engaged in construction works. The contract work relates to laying down of 4.40 Kms. of N.H. roads between Radhakant to Dullipatti via Barkurba Selibeli which falls within limits of the Sub- Division of Jainagar and was allotted to the firm. From the written complaint made by the Sub-Divisional Officer to the Officer Incharge of Jainagar Police Station, it appears that a - 2 - surprise inspection was held by the Assistant Engineer with regard to the construction work which was going on and it was found that construction work of the road was defective on many counts and below standard and of poor quality. A report was, accordingly, submitted on the basis of which first information report has been instituted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had no knowledge about the inspection held by the Assistant Engineer. She refers to clause 14 of the Agreement which stipulates that before any inspection of the work, notice has to be given to the contractor and inspection has to be conducted in his presence. She also refers to Clause 23 of the Agreement which stipulates that, for any defect in quality of workmanship or the materials used in works, the same has to be brought to the notice of the contractor and if he disputes it, the matter has to be reported to the higher officer for a decision. She also submits that petitioner was taken into custody by the police and kept in police custody since 4.11.2009. Only on a petition filed on his behalf in - 3 - court, he was finally remanded in this case on 10.11.2009. A supplementary affidavit has been filed enclosing documents and prescription to show that petitioner is of about 67 years of age and he is suffering from many ailments and at present, he is in I.C.U., Sadar Hospital, Madhubani. She also submits that in respect of the quality of work, if objection is raised by the authorities, the Firm is always in a position to rectify the same and improve it. Considering the above facts and circumstances, and particularly considering the fact that petitioner is suffering from many ailments and is fairly old man, this application is allowed. Let petitioner (Bishwambhar Purbey) be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani in connection with Jainagar P.S. Case No.92/09, (G.R. No.1246/09) with conditions as laid down in sub-section (3) of section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as may be applicable and - 4 - also that one of the bailors shall be a close relation of the petitioner. In case of breach of any of the conditions at any stage to the satisfaction of the concerned court below, it shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner and take steps for his arrest. B.T (J. N. Singh, J.)