Pankaj Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9461 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2012 Thana- PANAPUR District- Saran ====================================================== PANKAJ SINGH Son of Radha Mohan Singh Resident of Village - Pokhrera, P.S.- Taraiya, Distt Saran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dashrath Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-02-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with Panapur P.S. Case No. 9 of 2012 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 414, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

Informant is the Police Officer, who in his self statement has stated that on 28.01.2012 at about 8.55 AM one Parmeshwar Ram and Sunil Singh produced one motorcycle each before the police, stating that the same was given to them by Pankaj Singh (petitioner) and they suspected that the said motorcycles appear to be stolen one.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9461 of 2019(2) dt.19-02-2019 2/2 due to suspicion. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of petitioner. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 14.12.2018. Charge sheet has been submitted.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner named above be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.-IV, Saran, Chapra, in connection with Panapur P.S. Case No. 9 of 2012 subject to the conditions that:-

(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 his absence on two consecutive dates without proper and sufficient reason the trial court will be at liberty to cancel his bail bond.

(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) veena/- U T