Munchun Sah @ Manjan Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.32263 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -8 Year- 2015 Thana -CHAURADANO DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Munchun Sah @ Manjan Sah, Son of Jagarnath Sah, Resident of VillagePipra, P.S.- Darpa Distt.- East Champaran, Motihari. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajeev Nayan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 09-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial No.314 of 2016, arising out of Chhauradano P.S. Case No.8 of 2015, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Earlier the petitioner has moved before this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.7339 of 2016 and this Court vide order dated 11.04.2016 rejected the bail application of the petitioner with a liberty to renew his prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within one year.

Considered the fact one year has already been

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32263 of 2017 (2) dt.09-08-2017 2/2 elapsed but the trial is not concluded, let the petitioner-Munchun Sah @ Manjan Sah, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the 12th A.D.J, Motihari, East Champaran, in connection with Sessions Trial No.314 of 2016, arising out of Chhauradano P.S. Case No.8 of 2015 subject to the conditions that:- (i) one of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner i.e. mother/father/ wife/son of the petitioner;

(ii) if the petitioner is found involved in similar type of case in future, the prosecution will be at liberty to make prayer for cancellation of his bail and the Court below will pass necessary order, including cancellation of bail and;

(iii) that the petitioner would participate in the court proceeding and in the event of being absent on two consecutive dates without reasonable explanation, the court below will be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) pawan/- U