Sukeshwar Singh @ Sukeshwar Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.17924 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2 Year- 2010 Thana -KANKARBAGH District- PATNA ====================================================== Sukeshwar Singh @ Sukeshwar Kumar Son of Dayanand Singh, Resident of Village- Bijulia, P.S.- Shambho, District- Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Shankar Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party : APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 12-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is in custody since 06.02.2017 in connection with Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 02 of 2010 for the offences alleged under Sections 364(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with a dispute related to setting up a mobile tower between the informant's son and Chandan Kumar and Babloo Singh. The petitioner has been roped in merely because he happens to be the brother-in-law of Chandan Kumar and has nothing to do with the agreement between those parties. Coaccused Babloo Kumar Singh and Chandan Kumar has been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. NO. 20287 of 2011 and Cr. Misc. No. 15022 of 2012 respectively and the petitioner's case stands on far better footing. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.
4. Be that as it may, 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/-
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17924 of 2017 (2) dt.12-04-2017 2/2 (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna, in connection with Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 02 of 2010, on 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) 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.
(iv) 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.
(Vikash Jain, J) Md. Ibrarul/BT U T