Tinku Mahto And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.35602 of 2017 ======================================================

1. Tinku Mahto, Son of Laxman Mahato,

2. Manjit Kumar, Son of Nandu Mahato.

3. Raj Kumar Pandit, Son of Arjun Pandit, All are resident of VillageAmratu P.S. + District- Jamui. .... .... Petitioners/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Lakshmi Kant Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 08-08-2017 The petitioners seek regular bail in connection with Jamui P.S. Case No. 174 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 332, 337, 3328, 353, 504, 506, 427 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegation against the petitioners and several other coaccused persons is of obstructing the police in discharge of their official duty and also assaulted them when they had gone to rescue the person, who was illegally confined by the petitioners and others.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have falsely been implicated in this case and no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioners. Further

petitioners have no criminal antecedents and have been in judicial custody since 05.06.2017.

Heard learned A.P.P. also.

Having heard both sides, in view of the fact that petitioners' name transpired on this case only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused and except that there is nothing against the petitioners, let the petitioners above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Jamui, in connection with Jamui P.S. Case No. 174 of 2017, subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be a local person having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court.

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

(iii) The petitioners shall cooperate in the disposal of trial and make themselves available as and when required by the court and on the event of failure on their part to

appear before the court below on two consecutive dates without showing any genuine reasons, the prosecution will be free to move for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T