Sintu Das v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17038 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-139 Year-2018 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka * ====================================================== SINTU DAS, aged about 21 years, (M) Son of Arjun Das Resident of VillageFatehpur, P.S.- Amarpur, District- Banka. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Brij Nandad Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 02-04-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail registered for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Explosive substance Act.
Informant has alleged that petitioner got injured in a bomb explosion and he suspect that said bomb was kept by the petitioner and same exploded, however, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had gone to the hand pump for water and the pump exploded and cause injury to him. Nothing has been recovered from the house of the petitioner. Petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 25.10.2018.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17038 of 2019(2) dt.02-04-2019 2/2 of the case, let the petitioner named above be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned court below where the case is pending in connection with Amarpur P.S. Case No. 139 of 2018, with following condition:- (1)Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned.
(2) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the court below.
(3) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
(S. Kumar, J) manoj/- U T