Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8920/2016bail granted

Kanahiya Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2016-04-22Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8920 of 2016 (2) dt.22-04-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8920 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -87 Year- 2015 Thana -PURANHIA District- SHEOHAR ======================================================

1. Kanahiya Kumar Son of Raju Singh R/o village - Riga, P.S. Riga, District - Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Veena Kri.Jaiswal(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 22-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the Sate.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Purnahiya P.S. Case No. 87 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner is not named in the first information report and it is submitted that he is in custody since 23.11.2015 but he has not been put on test identification parade, name of the petitioner has transpired in the confessional statement of Parmesh Kumar and the motorcycle was recovered from possession of Parmesh Kumar and nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and as such he deserves sympathetic consideration to which learned APP fairly submits that snatched motorcycle was recovered from possession of Parmesh Kumar. In the facts and circumstances stated above, the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8920 of 2016 (2) dt.22-04-2016 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 S.D.J.M., Sheohar in connection with Purnahiya P.S. Case No. 87 of 2015, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a 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) avin/- U T