Patna High CourtCR. MISC./6094/2017bail granted

Pappu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2017-02-22Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6094 of 2017 (2) dt.22-02-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6094 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -530 Year- 2015 Thana -BARH District- PATNA ====================================================== Pappu Kumar, S/o- Late Ram Chandra Prasad, R/v- Domanachak, P.S.- Gopalpur, Distt.- Patna.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 22-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail, which was earlier rejected vide order dated 30.06.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 20505 of 2016, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 17.12.2015 and up-till-now the trial has not been concluded though there was direction to conclude the trial within six months and the petitioner was given liberty to renew his prayer of bail. Further the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.

Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering that the trial has not been concluded within the time given by this Court and as such considering the period of custody and further there is no chance of tampering with prosecution evidence, the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6094 of 2017 (2) dt.22-02-2017 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 A.C.J.M., Barh, Patna in connection with Barh P.S. Case No. 530 of 2015, 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) avin/- U T