Uday Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17740 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -324 Year- 2015 Thana -BIHTA District- PATNA ====================================================== Uday Kumar, Son of Kedar Ray @ Kedar Nath Rai, Resident of Village - Anandpur, P.S. Bihta, District - Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Rajeev, Adv : Mr. Pranav Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Akhileshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 19-04-2017 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Bihta P.S. Case No. 324 of 2015, registered for offences punishable under Sections 387, 302 and 34 Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitioner is that he in connivance with other co-accused person killed the deceased for non fulfillment of extortion of Rs. 80,000/-.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence rather the allegation is against co-accused of this case that he entered into truck and started the same and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased due to which the deceased died on spot. Further Dy. S.P. in his supervision note has not found the story of extortion true. Petitioner has been in custody since 20.11.2016. Heard learned A.P.P. also.

Having heard both sides, considering the facts and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17740 of 2017 (2) dt.19-04-2017 2/2 circumstances of the case, let the petitioner above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 (Rs. Twenty Five) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned ACJM, Danapur, in connection with Bihta P.S. Case No. 324 of 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be a local person having sufficient immovable property 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 reasons, the prosecution is free to move for cancellation of his bail.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T