Pramod Yadav And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.12060 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -135 Year- 2016 Thana -WARSALIGANJ District- NAWADA ======================================================

1. Pramod Yadav, S/o Late Prameshwer Yadav,

2. Dharamjit Ravidas, S/o Daneshwar Ravidas, Both R/o VillPakribarawan, P.S.- Pakribarawan, Distt- Nawada. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Arun Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 28-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioners seek bail in connection with Warsaliganj P.S. Case No. 135 of 2016, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and as submitted the name of the petitioner transpires in the confessional statement of co-accused and thereafter the petitioner was apprehended and his confessional statement has also been got recorded forcibly. The petitioner is in custody since 28.10.2016 but he has not been put on T.I.P., in this case Bikky Kumar has already been allowed bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 54754 of 2016 and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12060 of 2017 (2) dt.28-03-2017 2/2 The learned A.P.P. fairly submits that no T.I.P. has been conducted, as it is evident from impugned order. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M.-II, Nawada, in connection with Warsaliganj P.S. Case No. 135 of 2016, 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 petitioners shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on their part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioners from privilege of bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T