Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.55202 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -58 Year- 2016 Thana -KANKARBAGH District- PATNA ====================================================== Rahul Kumar, Son of Narayan Singh, R/o Village- Dhuria, P.S.- Asarganj, District- Munger, At present R/o Village- Ram Nagar (Dariyapur), P.S.- N.T.P.C. Barh, District- Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyendra Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madhdura Nand Jha (APP-102) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 22-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew the prayer of bail, which was earlier twice rejected vide order dated 22.10.2016 and 21.06.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. 41660 of 2016 and Cr. Misc. No. 21121 of 2017 respectively, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 22.02.2016 and there is no legal and cogent material against him. The trial has not been concluded within four months and the petitioner was given liberty to renew his prayer for bail, up till now only two prosecution witnesses have been examined and in near future the trial is not likely to be concluded. No ransom was paid and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.55202 of 2017 (3) dt.22-11-2017 2/2 The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail submitting that the petitioner was having the mobile which was used for demanding the ransom, but the trial has not been concluded.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the detention of the petitioner, now he 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 Smita Raj, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna, in connection with Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 58 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