Vijay Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2953 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -39 Year- 2010 Thana -PATAHI DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Vijay Ram son of Ram Prasad Ram Son of Late Banshi Ram resident of village - Sareya Gopal, Police Station - Patahi, District - East Champaran, Motihari .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kr. Jha , APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 15-03-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. representing the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Patahi P.S. Case No. 39 of 2010 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, Babita Devi, the daughter of the informant was married with the petitioner and with an intention to perform marriage again the petitioner and other F.I.R. named accused persons killed Babita Devi and made the dead body traceless or have hidden her at any place.
Submission is of false implication and that during investigation, it has come that Babita Devi went with her
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2953 of 2016 (3) dt.15-03-2016 2/3 brother-in-law and is living at Firojabad and she was having illicit relationship with him vide paragraphs 30, 35 and 36 of the case diary and as such the petitioner who is suffering in custody since 05.08.2015, deserves sympathetic consideration, chargesheet has been submitted and there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence. Some other co-accused namely Ram Prasad Ram and Ushpati Devi have already been allowed bail.
Learned A.P.P. fairly submits that brother of the informant, namely, Satendra Satyarthi has not supported the prosecution version and has stated that Babita Devi went with Surendra Kumar, the other son-in-law of the informant and is living at Firojabad vide paragraph-35 of the case diary. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering that charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence and as such, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Learned IVth Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sadar at Motihari, East Champaran in connection with Patahi P.S.Case No. 39 of 2010, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2953 of 2016 (3) dt.15-03-2016 3/3 relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) ajaypd./- U T