Santosh Thakur @ Santosh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6512 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -57 Year- 2016 Thana -PAROO District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Santosh Thakur @ Santosh Kumar son of Rajendra Thakur @ Katak Thakur, resident of village Kataroo, P.S. Paroo, District Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party: APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 22-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 09.11.2016 in connection with Paroo P.S. Case No. 57 of 2016 for the alleged offences under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on mere suspicion and recovery of the motor-cycle has allegedly been made from the hut and not from conscious possession of the petitioner. Co-accused Sunil Kumar has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 44546 of 2016. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes statement at the Bar that similarly situated co-accused Chandan Kumar has also been granted bail by the court below.

5. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Mr. Aditya Kumar Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur in connection with Paroo P.S. Case No. 57 of 2016 on

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6512 of 2017 (2) dt.22-02-2017 2/2 the following conditions - (i) That one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) That the petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation, if not already concluded, and make himself available as and when so required and in case of failure, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(iv) That the petitioner shall remain physically present in court on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned Court concerned.

(Vikash Jain, J) B.T/Ibrar U T