Sujeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.30656 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -68 Year- 2014 Thana -CHAKIA DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Sujeet Kumar Son of Motilal Mahato Resident of village - Mansi Chhapra, P.S. Chakia, Distt. - East Champaran, Motihari .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Om Prakash Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shantanu Kumar (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 30-10-2015 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case for the offences punishable under section 387 of the I.P.C and section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegedly, ransom of Rs. 5,00,000/- was demanded through mobile and on non payment firing was resorted. Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and he has been remanded in this case from Chakia P.S. Case No. 149 of 2014 on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Rousan Singh. There is absolutely no material against the petitioner and he is suffering in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30656 of 2015 (4) dt.30-10-2015 2/2 custody without any cogent and legal material since 29.11.2014. Other co-accused, namely, Geeta Devi, Birendra Mahto and Golu Kumar Singh @ Atul Aditya have been allowed bail by different Benches of this Court.

The learned A.P.P. is not in a position to distinguish the case of the petitioner from those co-accused. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, the petitioner 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. East Champaran, Motihari in Chakia P.S. Case No. 68 of 2014, 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