Rajeev Kumar @ Tappu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.56682 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -301 Year- 2014 Thana -KHAJEKALA District- PATNA ====================================================== Rajeev Kumar @ Tappu S/o late Ramayan Prasad, Resident of MohallaM.I.G. 283, Kankarbagh, P.S-Kankarbagh, District Patna. .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Mouar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr.Singh (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 05-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and informant.

In this case, the petitioner is seeking bail in connection with Khajekalan P.S. Case No. 301 of 2014 registered for offences under sections 420, 406, 120(B), 386 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner is a history sheeter with the identical nature of cases. He has adopted a modus operandi to take the money in the name of making arrangement of job, for that, he used to take huge amount from the candidate.

In the present case, allegation has been made against the petitioner to have taken Rs. 5,50,000/- in the name of making

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.56682 of 2015 (3) dt.05-02-2016 2/3 arrangement of job in Railway, but he could not arrange the same for the informant.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been remanded in the present case on 13th May 2015 and he is ready to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- to the informant within one month.

In view of such submission, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City in connection with Khajekalan P.S. Case No. 301 of 2014, subject to the condition that (i) one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner (ii) if the petitioner is found involved in future in similar type of case, the prosecution will be at liberty to make prayer for cancellation of his bail and the court below will pass necessary order, including cancellation of bail and (iii) the petitioner would cooperate the proceeding of the court below. In event of failure to appear on two consecutive dates, the court below will be at liberty to pass the order, including cancellation of bail bonds.

In failure to pay the aforesaid amount to the informant within one month from date of release from jail custody,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.56682 of 2015 (3) dt.05-02-2016 3/3 the bail of the petitioner will be treated to have been cancelled. (Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/- U T