Fulena Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7914 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-220 Year-2019 Thana- MADHUBAN District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Fulena Sahani Son of Bula Sahani Resident of Village-Madhubani Ghat, P.S.-Muffasil, District-East Champaran.

2.

Binod Sahani S/o Raghunath Sahani Resident of Village- Madhubani Ghat, P.S.- Muffasil, Distt- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajiv Nayan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 20-02-2020 Petitioners seek regular bail in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No. 220 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 413 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act. Recovery of pistol and cartridges from each of the petitioner. Apart from that, it appears that petitioner no. 1 is an accused of one other case of similar nature and petitioner no. 2 is an accused of four other cases of similar nature and also as well as under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they have falsely been implicated in this case. They are in custody for about four and 1/2 months.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7914 of 2020(2) dt.20-02-2020 2/2 Heard learned A.P.P. also.

In view of the submissions, let petitioner no.1 is concerned, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari, in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No. 220 of 2019, subject to the condition that one of the bailors of the petitioner shall be a local person having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned. So far petitioner no. 2 is concerned, I am not inclined to grant regular bail at this stage. However, petitioner no. 2 will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of the charge.

Accordingly, this application is disposed of. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Rahul/- U T