Karu Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22758 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -35 Year- 2011 Thana -IMAMGANJ District- GAYA ====================================================== Karu Paswan son of late Bilash Paswan Resident of Village- Chapadi, PS Imamganj, District Gaya.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Naresh Roy(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 26-05-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Imamganj P.S. Case No. 35 of 2011 registered for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3⁄4 of the Prevention of Witch Practices Act, 1999. Allegedly, F.I.R. named nine persons including the petitioner assaulted Kesri Devi, the wife of the informant with fists and slaps causing her death with allegation that she was practicing dyne.

Submission is of false implication and that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner, the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. Similarly situated co-accused Sukhdeo Paswan has already been allowed bail vide Criminal

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22758 of 2016 (2) dt.26-05-2016 2/2 Misc. No. 39393 of 2014 vide Annexure-2 and, as such, the petitioner also deserves sympathetic consideration to which the learned APP does not dispute.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner, above named, is also 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 Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati, Gaya in connection with Imamganj P.S. Case No. 35 of 2011, 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.) Mishra/- U T