IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3109 of 2010 SURENDRA PRASAD SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 18..3.2010 A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Let it be kept on record. Heard Shri Chittaranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Ram Priyasharan, learned A.P.P. for the State. Petitioner is an accused in a complaint case filed in the year 1999 in which cognizance was taken under sections 409, 420 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated that petitioner was the Regional Manager, posted at Patna of M/s Aneja Group, a non-banking company having its head quarters at Hydrabad. From perusal of the complaint petition it appears that Rs. 60,000/- was deposited by the complainant to the Branch manager co- accused Ranjeet Kumar on the assurance that on maturity he will receive 24% interest. It is also submitted that as a matter of fact no amount or money was entrusted to the petitioner. Initially this court was reluctant to consider the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner primarily on the ground that this case is of the year 1999 and petitioner has approached this court in the year 2010 for grant of anticipatory bail. However, Mr. Sinha has drawn my attention to certain orders to show that as a matter of fact petitioner had filed a petition under section 205 Cr.P.C. in the year 2000 itself seeking exemption of his personal appearance, but that petition was dismissed on 25.7.2006 against which a criminal revision no. 219 of 2006 was filed, which was also dismissed on 9.11.2009 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, and only thereafter the petitioner - 2 - has moved before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. By filing supplementary affidavit the petitioner has brought on record order dated 20.10.2003 whereby co-accused Ranjeet Kumar was granted bail by the learned court below on the day of his appearance on the assurance that the complainant and co-accused Ranjeet Kumar are relation and there was every likelihood that the matter may be compromised between the parties. This court is not in a position to know as to whether the matter has been actually compromised or not. Learned counsel for the State has also not disputed the aforesaid position but has submitted that some strict condition may be imposed against the petitioner so that trial of the case itself be concluded at an early date. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the above named petitioner in the event of his arrest or surrender in the court below within four weeks from today be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate , Ist class, Muzaffarpur in complaint case no. 1007 of 1999, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. and further that (a) that one of the bailors must be Govt. Servant or close family member 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 - 3 - regular pairvi in 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 bond of the petitioner. The trial court is further directed to make all endeavors to conclude the trial of the petitioner as early as possible preferably within a period of six months and petitioner shall give all cooperation in early disposal of the case. Non- cooperation in early disposal of the case, may result in cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) M.Rahman