Mukesh Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.12863 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -149 Year- 2015 Thana -BARURAJ District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Mukesh Ram, Son of Sitaram , Resident of Village- Mahmada Bhagwanpur, P.S.- Barurai, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 22-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew the prayer of bail, which was earlier twice rejected vide order dated 17.03.2016 and 10.08.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 3671 of 2016 and Cr. Misc. 28882 of 2016, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 10.12.2015 and in near future the trial is not likely to be concluded. The petitioner was given liberty to renew his prayer of bail, if the trial is not concluded within six months and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration, further co-accused Md. Chhote Alam, Laloo Bhagar @ Deepak Bhagat, Birndrda Bhagat and Md. Mumtaz have already been allowed bail by different co-ordinate Benches of this Court and, as such, the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12863 of 2017 (2) dt.22-03-2017 2/2 petitioner also deserves sympathetic consideration. The learned A.P.P. submits that the petitioner now has remained in custody for more than one year. In the facts and circumstances stated above, petitioner is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Muzaffarpur, in connection with Baruraj P.S. Case No. 149 of 2015, 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 petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T