Umesh Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.35394 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -93 Year- 2015 Thana -KHAIRA District- SARAN ====================================================== Umesh Prasad, son of Late Nathuni Pd., Resident of Village- Jagdishpur, P.S. Khaira, District- Saran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Matloob Rab (AAP-34) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 09-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew the prayer of bail, which was earlier rejected vide order dated 27.03.2016 and 08.03.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. 4900 of 2016 and Cr. Misc. No. 8349 of 2017 respectively, on the ground that the petitioner is in custody since 03.10.2015. The doctor has found no injury caused by sharp cut weapon and, as such, the allegation that the petitioner assaulted with sword is not substantiated. Other co-accused have been allowed bail and petitioner was given liberty to renew his prayer for bail, if the trial has not been concluded within four months.

The learned A.P.P. fairly submits that trial has not

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35394 of 2017 (2) dt.09-08-2017 2/2 been concluded.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, the 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 Additional Sessions Judge-X, Saran, Chapra, in connection with Khaira P.S. Case No. 93 of 2015, corresponding to S. Tr. No. 102 of 2016, 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