Raj Kumar Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6764 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -158 Year- 2015 Thana -SIKANDARA District- JAMUI ====================================================== Raj Kumar Mahto son of Late Gainu Mahto R/o Vill. - Chorsua, p.s. - Giriyak, Distt - Nalanda permanent r/o vill - Pratappur, p.s - Halsi, Distt. - Lakhisarai.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. P.N.Pandit(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 01-03-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sikandra P.S. Case No. 158 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. Allegedly, on the basis of disclosure made by the petitioner from possession of co-accused fire arms were recovered and further four live cartridges were recovered from a place where animals of Nand Kishore Mahto are being tied and from possession of the petitioner two mobiles were recovered. Submission is of false implication and that from possession of the petitioner nothing was recovered, he has been

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6764 of 2016 (2) dt.01-03-2016 2/2 made victim of the circumstance, he has got no criminal antecedent and suffering in custody since 11.11.2015. Learned A.P.P. fairly submits that by remaining in custody now the petitioner has been sufficiently penalized. In the facts and circumstances stated above, 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 A.C.J.M., 2nd Jamui in connection with Sikandra P.S. Case No. 158 of 2015 subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be near 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) sushma/- U T