Budhan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11482 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -19 Year- 2015 Thana -KOCHAS District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Budhan Singh son of Wakil Singh Resident of Village - Panaila, Police Station - Kargahar, District - Rohtas.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhakar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kr. Ranjit Ranjan(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 22-06-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case for the offence punishable under section 394 of the I.P.C Allegedly, some unknown miscreants after assaulting the informant and his sister snatched ornaments and mobile. During investigation the name of the petitioner transpires in the confessional statement of co-accused Birendra Mushar. Submission is of false implication, besides the confessional statement of co-accused there is nothing against the petitioner and only on the basis of the criminal antecedent the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected, the petitioner is suffering in custody since 22.04.2015 but he has not been put on

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11482 of 2016 (3) dt.22-06-2016 2/2 the test identification parade, nothing has been recovered from his possession.

The learned A.P.P. submits that the petitioner has got criminal antecedent.

In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering detention of the petitioner, now he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Sasaram, Rohtas in Kochas (Parshathua O.P.) P.S. Case No. 19 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) Abhay/- U T