Gaurabh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8905 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -78 Year- 2016 Thana -JEHANABAD (TAREGNA) GRP CASE DistrictPATNA ====================================================== Gaurabh Kumar, Son of Rama Kant Sharma, resident of village - Dharaut, P.S. Bishunganj, District - Jehanabad .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. J.K. Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 23-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 19.11.2016 in connection with Jehanabad (Taregna) G.R. P.S. Case No. 78 of 2016 for the offences alleged under Section 30(a)/3/5/18 of the Excise Act and Section 146/147 of the Railways Act.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the prosecution case is highly improbable as the petitioner was hardly likely to claim ownership of the offending goods as alleged. The petitioner is on bail in respect of one other case in which he has been made accused.

4. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of custody since 19.11.2016 already suffered, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Patna in connection with Jehanabad (Taregna) G.R.P.S. Case No. 78 of 2016 with the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8905 of 2017 (2) dt.23-02-2017 2/2 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) 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.

(iv) 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. (Vikash Jain, J) Md. Ibrarul/- U T