Gayan Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.14032 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -205 Year- 2016 Thana -SIKANDARA District- JAMUI ====================================================== Gayan Ranjan, Son of Pramod Kumar Vidyarthi, Resident of VillageAliganj, P.S. Chandradeep, District- Jamui. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajeev Nayan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 08-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This is an application for bail in connection with Sikandra P.S.Case No. 205 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioner is that in collusion with others he has opened several Bank accounts in fake names and through ATM they have withdrawn amount from the Bank in MNREGA accounts but, as a matter of fact, he has opened those accounts on the recommendation of Mukhiya for payment of MNREGA Project and he is in custody for more than three months.

Heard learned APP, who has opposed the prayer for bail stating that petitioner is Manager of the Grahak Sewa Kendra and further he has confessed his guilt before police and that he has

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14032 of 2017 (3) dt.08-04-2017 2/2 opened accounts on the recommendation of Mukhiya. Having heard both sides and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Jamui, in connection with Sikandra P.S.Case No. 205 of 2016, G.R.No.2422 of 2016, subject to the conditions that :- (i) Both the bailors of the petitioner should be local persons having sufficient immovable properties within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court.

(ii) The petitioner will not induce any witness or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The petitioner shall cooperate in the disposal of trial and make himself available as and when required by the court and on the event of failure on his part to appear before the court below on two consecutive dates without showing any genuine reason, the prosecution is free to move for cancellation of his bail.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U