Dhirendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.27171 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -100 Year- 2006 Thana -KISHUNPUR District- SUPAUL ======================================================

1. Dhirendra Yadav S/o Late Parsuram Yadav resident of village - Chiknapatti, P.S. Raghopur, District - Supaul .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. P.K.Chaurasiya(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 13-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kisanpur P.S. Case No. 100 of 2006 registered for the offences punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly unknown miscreants being armed committed dacoity in Shukhasan Branch of Central Bank of India and took away cash of Rs. 2,72,283 and further snatched mobile of bank Cashier.

Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner is in custody since 06.01.2015 but he has not been put on T.I.P. and nothing has been recovered from his house or from his conscious possession and he is being implicated in one case

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27171 of 2015 (3) dt.13-10-2015 2/3 after another due to high-handedness of the police. In the trial seven witnesses have been examined and all of them have not identified the petitioner. From the report received from the learned court below, it is apparent that the informant and I.O. are still to be examined and the informant has been transferred to somewhere and inspite of summons and bailable warrant of arrest, he has nowt turned up and atleast nine months time is required to conclude the trial. He has been allowed bail in another case by another coordinate Benches of this Court and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.

Learned A.P.P. fairly submits that during trial witnesses examined had not identified the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances stated above, the 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 Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Supaul arising out of Kisanpur P.S. Case No. 100 of 2006 subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be 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

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27171 of 2015 (3) dt.13-10-2015 3/3 his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) sushma/- U