Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8890/2017bail granted

Sanjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2017-02-23Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8890 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -316 Year- 2016 Thana -MURLIGANJ District- MADHEPURA ====================================================== Sanjeet Kumar, Son of Shatgrughan Yadav, Resident of village - Rahta, Bhawanipur, Police Station - Kumarkhand, District - Madhepura .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : 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 26.11.2016 in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 316 of 2016 for the offences alleged under Sections 37(a), 37(b) of the New Excise Act and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and in any event there is no recovery of any articles attracting the provisions of Bihar Excise Act. Two cartridges have been recovered without any pistol or other arms.

4. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of custody since 26.11.2016 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 316 of 2016 with 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

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8890 of 2017 (2) dt.23-02-2017 2/2 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/BT U T